ATTORNEY HORRIFIED BY MISTAKES – THE TEAM USED A REPUTABLE LEGAL DATABASE
As posted on Linked in by
Mary Matuszak
Director of Library Services at New York County District Attorney’s Office
ATTORNEY HORRIFIED BY MISTAKES – THE TEAM USED A REPUTABLE LEGAL DATABASE – regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). (Doc. 175). In that Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint because “it was brought to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s attention that one of the cited cases in the pending Amended Complaint could not be found.” (Doc. 175, pg. 2). There are also other “miscited cases [that] actually have correct cases and/or citations” that can be corrected. (Doc. 175, pgs. 3-4). Plaintiffs’ counsel explains, in part, he “had assistance from an experienced attorney drafting the Complaint and while no one used any Chat GPT-type program, they both used LEXIS and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s assistant used LEXIS+ Document Analysis or Brief Analysis or one of their similar products.” (Doc. 175, pg. 3). Plaintiffs’ counsel takes responsibility, stating he is “horrified” by the inexcusable errors. (Doc. 175, pgs. 3-4). However, he also notes “the main precedents…and the…statutory citations are correct and none of the Plaintiffs’ claims were based on the mis-cited cases.” Plaintiff also seeks leave to “clarify the types of relief being sought.” (Doc. 175, pg. 5). Due to “the inexplicable nature of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s error, the Court directed Defendants to file a Response to the Motion to Amend Complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) by December 22, 2025, to address, inter alia, the effect that Plaintiffs’ request would have on the pending Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. 176) (citing Docs. 29, 30, 113; L.R. 15.1(b)(3) (eff. Sept. 22, 2025) (“Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, whenever an amended pleading is filed, any motion attacking the original pleading will be deemed moot.”)). They have now done so. In the Response, Defendants agree “the striking of all miscited and non-existent cases [is] proper.” (Doc. 186, pg. 5).
Integrity Investment Fund, LLC et al v. Raoul et al, 3:25CV01122
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7413234117577953280/
