US | United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division (Dayton) Docket: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG • first instance

2026-01-02

Kettering Adventist Healthcare v. Collier et al — Decision and Entry (Doc. 113)

Unspecified generative AI tool (suspected / not confirmed) no_human_verification; fabricated_case_citation; misrepresented_case_law; ai_use_uncertain

I. Executive Summary

The court sustained third-party defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the counterclaim/third-party complaint against them with prejudice. In reviewing the defendants’ motion practice, the court identified repeated citations to non-existent cases and/or authorities that did not support the propositions asserted. The judge stated that the court could not determine whether counsel used generative AI to generate the citations, but emphasized that the duty of candor and Rule 11 obligations apply regardless of the tool. The court ordered attorney H. Leon Hewitt and self-represented lawyer Mary T. Scott to show cause within 14 days why they did not violate Rule 11(b), why they should not be held in contempt, and why sanctions (including potentially overruling a motion to dismiss with prejudice) should not be imposed. The judge also indicated an intent to report the conduct to Ohio disciplinary authorities and to recuse after resolving the show-cause process.

II. Conduct Analysis

Defense-side filings included at least a dozen citations the court described as non-existent or materially misrepresented, even after opposing counsel highlighted problems. The court noted it did not know whether an AI tool was used, but treated the pattern as sanction-relevant misconduct requiring an explanation and potentially contempt/sanctions proceedings.

III. Legal Foundations

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) inherent contempt authority Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) (candor)

IV. Key Facts

1) Decision signed January 2, 2026. Case No. 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG. 2) The court described at least twelve cited cases as non-existent or unrelated, and stated the conduct undermined trust in counsel/filings. 3) Show-cause deadline: 14 days from entry; contemplated referral to the Cincinnati Bar Association Grievance Committee or Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

V. Consequences & Sanction

1) Order to show cause issued. 2) Sanctions and contempt proceedings initiated. 3) Potential disciplinary referral announced. 4) Merits motions deferred to successor judge.