Background
LaVonne and Michael Washington appealed a final order dismissing their complaint in Hillsborough County Circuit Court case 24-CA-010301. Their initial brief cited eleven cases that the Second District could not locate, prompting the court to order them either to provide copies of the cases or to show cause why sanctions—including dismissal and restrictions on further pro se filings—should not be imposed.
The Washingtons did not provide the cases. They characterized the citations as scrivener’s errors caused by logistical pressure and argued that Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2)(D), which expressly requires filers to certify that cited authorities exist and are accurately cited, could not be applied retroactively. The court also considered their filings in two related appellate proceedings, including meritless challenges to fee orders and motions for rehearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that sanctions were warranted because the Washingtons relied on fictitious authorities, failed to justify or excuse those citations in response to the show-cause order, and had engaged in a pattern of frivolous filings. Although the court considered it likely that generative artificial intelligence produced the fabricated citations, it explained that the source was immaterial; the sanctionable conduct was relying on nonexistent cases in a court filing.
The court rejected the Washingtons’ retroactivity argument. It concluded that, even before rule 2.515(d)(2) was amended to address nonexistent authorities expressly, signing a filing represented its accuracy, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) already authorized sanctions for violating that obligation. The court dismissed the appeal and directed the clerk to place in an inactive file future appeals or original proceedings filed by either Washington concerning circuit court case 24-CA-010301 unless the filing is signed by a Florida Bar member in good standing or relates to a proceeding pending when the opinion issued.
Key Takeaways
- Submitting and relying on fictitious case citations is sanctionable regardless of whether generative AI produced them.
- The 2026 amendment expressly addressing the existence and accuracy of cited authorities clarified obligations that already applied to signed filings.
- A litigant’s broader pattern of meritless and repetitive filings may support dismissal and restrictions on future pro se access in related litigation.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that pro se litigants and attorneys must independently verify every authority included in a filing. Blaming drafting pressure, citation errors, or the absence of legal-research software does not excuse reliance on cases that do not exist.
It also shows that Florida appellate courts may combine case-specific sanctions with prospective filing restrictions when fabricated citations occur alongside repeated frivolous litigation, while preserving access through filings signed by a Florida Bar member in good standing and through proceedings already pending.