Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Ella and Ramin LLC v. Travelers Insurance Company

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · Federal district courts · IL · 2026-03-31 · 2026 WL 891866 · No. 24-cv-07870 · order

Fabricated or misquoted citations

On 2026-03-31, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the sanctions motion and dismissed nonparty Travelers-related defendants while noting the movant’s admitted AI use and repeated legal misstatements. A self-represented party submitted a complaint with The complaint and sanctions papers cited nonexistent or irrelevant Illinois insurance authorities while relying on admitted AI-drafted legal research.

Disposition: The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ partial motion to dismiss, dismissed Travelers Insurance Company and Schnitzer with prejudice, granted plaintiff’s sur-reply motion, and denied plaintiff’s Rule 11 motion.
Recorded conduct: Ghayoori’s response brief cited cases that did not support the asserted propositions, including Harris v. One Hope United, and repeatedly cited Heritage Common Partners v. Village of Summit using two Illinois reporter citations that led to no Illinois case by that name. — outcome: noted, no consequence; actor: litigant in person
Canonical record: Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

The motion is based on a sentence in Defendants’ reply brief identifying legal errors in Ghayoori's response brief and suggesting that they were caused by Ghayoori's use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”). Ghayoori's motion is frivolous and therefore denied. Use of AI is not prohibited by this Court's (or this Circuit's) rules. ... Few of the cases Ghayoori cites support the proposition for which he cites them. ... Heritage Common Partners v. Village of Summit ... neither of the two parallel citations lead to a case by that name. Indeed, the Court could not identify any Illinois case with that case name.

Court document: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-07 · court document read from a public copy; the court's own copy was not found online when checked (see notes)provisional
Found via: charlotin-hallucinations-db
Notes: Re-coded from the document 2026-09-08 (independent second read). Official copy not obtained 2026-09-08: not in the court's GovInfo feed for this docket (many district courts publish only some orders) (checked govinfo.gov (USCOURTS), CourtListener RECAP search).

United States court documents are public domain; the topic coding, disposition line and summary are SafeLegalAI's reading of the document for comparison, not a finding about any person named in it. This record summarises a public court document or official publication and reports what it says; SafeLegalAI makes no findings of its own. Individuals and organisations are named only as they appear in that public record. Anyone named may send a right of reply, correction or contextual update (for example an appeal, vacatur or later disposition) via /report; we add a dated note where appropriate. Reply or correct this record.

compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub