Claude on Question 48, Sep 29

I can't quote its holding, because Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019) does not exist. It is a fabricated citation, and a fairly notorious one.

Where it comes from

This citation originated in Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). Counsel for the plaintiff submitted a brief containing several case citations generated by ChatGPT, including "Varghese," "Shaboon v. Egyptair," "Petersen v. Iran Air," "Martinez v. Delta Air Lines," "Estate of Durden v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines," and "Miller v. United Airlines." None of them were real. When opposing counsel and the court could not locate them, counsel filed what purported to be copies of the opinions — which were also fabricated, and internally incoherent (wrong reporter pages, garbled procedural history, fake internal citations).

Judge P. Kevin Castel imposed Rule 11 sanctions on the attorneys and their firm in a June 22, 2023 opinion, and described the submissions as containing "gibberish." The case has since become the standard reference point for AI-hallucinated citations in litigation, and has prompted standing orders in many courts requiring disclosure or certification regarding generative AI use.

The "holding" attributed to it

In the Mata briefing, Varghese was cited for the proposition that the two-year limitations period in Article 35 of the Montreal Convention can be tolled during a carrier's bankruptcy proceedings. That proposition is not supported by any real Eleventh Circuit authority, and it runs contrary to the weight of actual case law.

What the real law says

If the underlying question you care about is whether the Montreal Convention's two-year period is subject to tolling, the genuine authorities go the other way. Article 35 is generally treated as a condition precedent to the right of action rather than an ordinary statute of limitations, so equitable tolling doctrines don't apply. See, e.g., Fishman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 132 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 1997) (Warsaw Convention Article 29; rejecting tolling for infancy), and the line of cases following it. You should verify the current state of the law and check for circuit-specific authority.

A practical note

If you encountered this citation in a brief, memo, or research product you received, treat that as a signal to verify every other citation in the document. And it's worth running any citation you're unsure about through Westlaw, Lexis, CourtListener, or Google Scholar before relying on it — the tell here was that the case simply doesn't appear in any database.

Happy to help you find real authority on whatever substantive issue you were researching.