Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC.
2024 COA 128. No. 24CA0190. Landlords and Tenants—Warranty of Habitability—Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment—Artificial Intelligence—Generative AI Tools—Hallucinations—Appellate Briefs—Citation to Authorities—Sanctions for Noncompliance.
December 26, 2024
Al-Hamim rented an apartment from Star Hearthstone, LLC. He filed various claims against Star Hearthstone and the management company IRT Living (collectively, landlords) for their alleged failure to address his concerns about cat urine odor and carpet stains in his apartment. The district court dismissed his claims for breach of the warranty of habitability and the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment for failure to state a claim under CRCP 12(b)(5). Al-Hamim appealed and filed an opening brief by using generative artificial intelligence (GAI).
On appeal, Al-Hamim contended that the court erred by determining that the landlords did not breach the warranty of habitability and the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment and by granting the landlords’ motion to dismiss. However, Al-Hamim failed to allege plausible claims for breach of the warranty of habitability and the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, and he did not cite any authority to support his claims. Accordingly, the district court did not err by concluding that Al-Hamim failed to plead actionable claims and by dismissing those claims.
Al-Hamim also raised several claims for the first time in his opening brief that the court of appeals did not consider because Al-Hamim did not plead them in his complaint.
Lastly, the court addressed Al-Hamim’s citations to numerous fake cases (known as “hallucinations”) in his opening brief. The submission of a brief containing GAI-produced hallucinations violates C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(B), conduct that may be sanctioned. After the court ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for citing fake cases, Al-Hamim admitted that he relied on GAI when preparing his opening brief, apologized for his mistake, and accepted responsibility for including hallucinations. While the court concluded that Al-Hamim’s submission of a brief with hallucinations violated C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(B), it concluded that imposing monetary sanctions or dismissing this appeal would be disproportionate to Al-Hamim’s violation of the Colorado Appellate Rules. Nevertheless, the court put lawyers and self-represented parties on notice that future filings containing GAI-generated hallucinations may may result in sanctions.
The judgment was affirmed.