Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Wallace v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC

United States District Court for the District of Nevada · Federal district courts · NV · 2026-03-26 · 2026 WL 837418 · No. 2:25-cv-02297-APG-EJY · order

Fabricated or misquoted citations

On 2026-03-26, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted amendment in part, denied the motion to dismiss as moot, and warned that fake AI-drafted cases must be verified. A self-represented party submitted a complaint with false quotations and fabricated or nonexistent authorities.

Disposition: The court granted leave to amend in part, denied the motion to dismiss as moot, and warned Wallace to stop citing fake cases.
Recorded conduct: Wallace relied on fake cases in his response and at least one fake case in a later reply after being notified of the problem. — outcome: warning; 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.

and as the result of using generative AI software, like ChatGPT, deny the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) as moot. to draft pleadings. Chavez-DeRemer v. NAB, LLC, No. 2:21- Wallace moves to amend and attaches a proposed second CV-00984-JAD-EJY, 2025 WL 2308676, at *3 (D. Nev. amended complaint. ECF No. 43-1. The defendants oppose, Aug. 11, 2025). Generative AI often invents fake cases and arguing amendment is futile and Wallace is repeatedly legal precedent in its drafting, and using it is no excuse for amending to prolong the proceedings and stave off not verifying the veracity of citations. See Whiting, 2026 foreclosure. WL 710568, at *4 (“Citing even a single fake case can be sanctionable because no brief, pleading, motion, or any *4 I must “freely give leave” to a plaintiff to amend his other paper filed in any court should contain any citations complaint “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). —whether provided by generative AI or any other source I am to apply this policy “with extreme liberality.” Eminence —that a lawyer [or pro se party] has not personally read Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

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