Guo v. Meade Motorcars, L.L.C. — Ohio Ct. App., 2026 (courtlistener.com)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Guo's motion to set aside judgment because he did not establish grounds for relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1)-(5). Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Guo's motion for sanctions where he did not demonstrate false or fraudulent testimony. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Guo's motion to set aside the sanctions against him where he cited and relied upon five different AI-hallucinated cases. [Cite as Guo v. Meade Motorcars, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-1930.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SANDUSKY COUNTY Xingkui Guo Court of Appeals No. {72}S-25-035 Appellant Trial Court No. 24 CJ 1313 v. Meade Motorcars, LLC DECISION AND JUDGMENT