In an order issued via a lengthy docket entry on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Vernon D. Oliver noted that Joseph Freeman is not represented by legal counsel in the matter, finding he might still be able to put forth arguments toward his defense and should, therefore, have another shot despite previous blown deadlines and the AI-generated arguments.
"The court agrees that his filing contains false statements, but that alone does not persuade the court to deny his request," Judge Oliver said.
Freeman, a Los Angeles resident, faces allegations that he "engaged in a campaign to terrorize countless individuals" whose contact information he obtained while working as an employee of American Airlines or one of its regional affiliates.
In a complaint filed in October, five individuals accused Freeman of having "bombarded" them with texts, phone calls and other communications, including some that included hate speech, threats and insults. They brought a total of seven claims, including negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Freeman and negligent hiring, supervision and retention against American Airlines and its affiliates.
In the months after the suit was filed, Freeman sought a deadline extension but otherwise failed to answer the complaint. Plaintiffs Drew Adames, Zachary Fleishman, Austin Jose, Brooklyn Maes and Thomas Roark filed for default in April after Freeman failed to respond by the March 3 extended deadline.
The clerk of court issued the default order on April 7. On May 27, Freeman filed an opposition to the default motion, arguing that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "good cause to deny default exists where the default was not willful but rather the result of excuable [sic] neglect," and that strong precedent exists in the Second Circuit to resolve suits on their merits, rather than on default.
On May 30, Judge Oliver issued an order directing defendants to respond, but noted Freeman's filing "may have used artificial intelligence," as evidenced by Freeman's citation of quotes that could not be located.
Judge Oliver found that pro se litigants — parties who represent themselves in litigation without formal help from licensed attorneys — are able to conduct research using artificial intelligence, but that writing briefs with AI presents a pitfall.
Federal rules state all submissions must "have evidentiary support" and must be "warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying or reversing existing law," the judge noted.
"Here, defendant Freeman has misrepresented the law and the facts, in violation of this rule," Judge Oliver found at the time. "Any further misrepresentations may result in sanctions."
On June 19, Roark, Jose, Adames, Maes and Fleishman entered an objection, arguing Freeman "failed to take any action, much less prompt action, to correct his mistake. Indeed, he has yet to file a responsive pleading."
Judge Oliver vacated the default "with some hesitation" on Thursday.
"As defaults are 'generally disfavored,' the Second Circuit has instructed lower courts to resolve doubts as to defaults 'in favor of the defaulting party,'" Judge Oliver said.
The judge said there remains a possibility Freeman could launch a worthwhile defense despite not having done so up to this point, noting he deserves leeway as a pro se litigant.
Judge Oliver also noted that a pro se litigant's use of AI may generate an "unfair advantage" because such parties are usually granted special treatment since they are not represented by counsel.
"In these circumstances, however, because defendant Freeman seems to have observed the court's warning about an overreliance on AI, the court gives him the benefit of the doubt," the judge said.
The present suit came after the plaintiffs defaulted on a previous complaint brought against Freeman.
In August, Judge Oliver threw out a similar but separate suit by 15 airline passengers claiming they were targeted and harassed by Freeman, finding they missed a filing deadline. At the time, Judge Oliver had twice asked the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to accurately reflect remaining plaintiffs, but they failed to do so, resulting in the judge issuing a dismissal without prejudice.
Freeman and counsel for the plaintiffs and the airlines did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.
Roark, Jose, Adames, Maes and Fleishman are represented by Gary J. Greene of Greene Law PC.
American Airlines Group Inc., Envoy Aviation Group Inc. and Envoy Air Inc. are represented by Leah Godesky, Mark W. Robertson, Jason Zarrow and Salvatore J. Cocchiaro of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
Freeman is representing himself.
The case is Roark et al. v. American Airlines Group Inc. et al., case number 3:24-cv-01695, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
--Editing by Drashti Mehta.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
