I’ve Seen Fake Cites on Both Sides Now (II)

Plaintiff and Defendant’s objections will be stricken because they contain factitious citations.

The litigants in this case have been repeatedly warned that factitious citations will not be tolerated by the Court. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford ordered Plaintiff and Defendant to “include a written representation that [they have] personally checked each legal citation and each citation is accurate and stands for its asserted proposition” and warned that a failure to do so may result in sanctions. Despite Judge Stafford’s order and this Court’s repeated warnings, both Plaintiff and Defendant have violated the Court’s express requirements numerous times.

On November 20, 2025, the Court imposed sanctions on both Plaintiff and Defendant for their repeated use of factitious citations and have stricken the parties’ filings when they contain factitious citations. The parties have been warned that additional sanctions may be imposed if future filings contain factitious citations….

Plaintiff’s objections contain factitious citations. Plaintiff declares in her objection that she “reviewed the citations and representations contained herein and that, to the best of [her] knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, they are accurate and supported by the record.” However, in her objections, Plaintiff argues,

Michigan’s single-publication rule does not bar claims based on a new and discrete act of publication occurring within the statutory period. Where a defendant affirmatively reissues, relinks, re-amplifies, or otherwise causes renewed dissemination of allegedly defamatory material, that act may constitute a separate publication. Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21[ ] (2005).

Plaintiff cites Mitan for a similar proposition later in her objection, stating, “Michigan law further provides that liability may attach where a defendant authorizes or affirmatively causes a republication. See Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21 [ ] (2005).”

But Mitan does not remotely stand for Plaintiff’s asserted proposition. In fact, the Mitan court states the opposite. Mitan, 474 Mich. at 24–25 (stating that “a defamation claim must be filed within one year from the date the claim first accrued” and that accrual of a claim is not extended “on the basis of republication”)….

Defendant’s objections also contain factitious citations. Defendant declares in her objection that she “checked all citations in this filing and, to the best of [her] knowledge, they are accurate.” However, many of Defendant’s citations are factitious.

For example, Defendant cites Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009), for the statement, “Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction.” But at no point does the Delay opinion support that statement. Instead, the Sixth Circuit in Delay directed the defendants “to submit a jurisdictional statement identifying the citizenship of all its members” in its efforts to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the case. Delay, 585 F.3d at 1005.

Similarly, Defendant cites Everett v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 460 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 2006), for the contention that “Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.” At no point does the Everett opinion support this contention. Instead, the Everett decision states that “[a] defendant wishing to remove a case bears the burden of satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement.” Everett, 460 F.3d at 822.

{Although the Court only describes two factitious citations here, numerous citations in Defendant’s objections appears to be factitious. But even a single factitious citation is a violation of the Court’s prior orders and is sanctionable.}

Despite the parties’ certifications and the Court’s numerous warnings, the parties’ objections contain factitious citations. The parties were warned in previous Court orders that sanctions may be imposed if future filings contain factitious citations.

Yet again, the parties have violated the Court’s express requirements, misrepresented the law to the Court, and wasted the Court’s time. Plaintiff and Defendant’s objections are stricken and will not be considered by the Court….

In response to the Order, Plaintiff sought to file an objection. She filed a motion for leave to file a late objection to the Order, as well as the late objection.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late objection is stricken for failure to include the certification ordered by Judge Stafford on September 25, 2025. Plaintiff’s late objection is also stricken for failure to include this certification.

On September 25, 2025, Judge Stafford set forth,

In each of their future filings, Evans and Robertson “must include a written representation that [they have] personally checked each legal citation and each citation is accurate and stands for its asserted proposition.” See [Everett J. Prescott, Inc. v. Beall, No. 1:25-cv-00071, 2025 WL 2084353, at (D. Me. July 24, 2025)].

Judge Stafford warned that failure to do so may result in sanctions.

Here, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late objection and the objection to the Order do not include the required certification. As such, Plaintiff’s motion and objection are stricken….