Mr. Feldman persisted. A few days prior to the Court's hearing on the Order to Show Cause, Mr. Feldman submitted a proposed reply brief in further support of Affable's motion to dismiss. Once again, his brief contained false citations. And at the August 22, 2025 hearing, Mr. Feldman was unable to respond directly to, much less answer, the Court's questioning about his submissions. [...] Mr. Feldman has not, and apparently cannot, learn from his mistakes. And while the Court does not oppose the use of AI to assist in legal research and writing, it must take a stand where, as here, counsel repeatedly files submissions with false citations because counsel refuses to verify those submissions. This Court can do no more. For the reasons that follow, the Court sanctions Mr. Feldman pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the Court's inherent powers by striking Affable's submissions and entering default judgment against it.
Almost every sanction on this page lands on the lawyer. This one lands on the client. Steven Feldman was defending Affable Avenue in a trademark case and filed a brief peppered with citations to decisions that do not exist. Ordered to explain, he answered with a submission that appeared to have been written by AI as well, and which attributed a quotation to Mata v. Avianca, the 2023 case that started all of this; the court went looking and found the words in a law firm blog post about Mata rather than in the decision. He then filed a reply brief with more false citations. His account of how it happened is the part worth keeping. He said he found unreported cases through Google Scholar and the AI-assisted research platform vLex, then checked the citations by running the brief through a second AI program, and that the automated check introduced the errors, which he took for corrections and did not read. On 5 February 2026 Judge Failla struck the filings and entered default judgment against Affable Avenue. The company lost the case over how its lawyer had written the brief.
