Reported / Citable
Background
Plaintiffs cited “Henry v. Kroger Co., No. 4:19-cv-00630, 2019 WL 6311295 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2019)” in their response to Hyatt Corporation’s motion for partial dismissal. The court identified that case as nonexistent.
At a July 29, 2026 hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel Lino Ochoa represented that he had neither prepared nor reviewed the response before it was filed. The order identifies Daniel Miguel Hernandez as plaintiffs’ other attorney of record but does not state that he filed, prepared, reviewed, or submitted the response.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower ordered Hernandez to appear and show cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3) why the conduct described in the order did not violate Rule 11(b). The show-cause hearing was set for August 19, 2026, at 2 p.m. in the federal courthouse in Austin.
The court explained that Rule 11(b) requires an attorney presenting a paper to certify that its legal citations are correct to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information, and belief after a reasonable inquiry. The order did not find that Hernandez or any other attorney had violated Rule 11, impose sanctions, or resolve Hyatt’s motion for partial dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- A nonexistent case citation in plaintiffs’ response prompted Rule 11 scrutiny.
- The court ordered Hernandez to appear and explain why the described conduct did not violate Rule 11(b).
- The order initiated a show-cause process; it did not make a final Rule 11 violation or sanctions determination.
Why It Matters
The order underscores counsel’s obligation to verify authorities before submitting a filing. When a brief cites a nonexistent decision, the court may require counsel to account for whether the filing followed a reasonable prefiling inquiry.
It also illustrates the procedural distinction between ordering an attorney to show cause and finding misconduct: the August 5 order began an inquiry but did not decide whether a Rule 11 violation occurred.