AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAlaya Coleman v. RPF-Somers Investors, LLC, et al.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Alaya Coleman v. RPF-Somers Investors, LLC, et al.

E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 4, 2025

WI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotestortNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Court acknowledged the Defendants' allegation that the pro se Plaintiff hallucinated case law citations. While the Court agreed the Plaintiff's cited authority was inapplicable, it did not formally adjudicate the existence of fabricated citations or impose sanctions for them, focusing instead on procedural deficiencies and Rule 8 compliance.

Why the court cared
False Quotes: Case Law | The Removing Defendants contended that Plaintiff 'hallucinates nonexistent quotes from cases' in support of her remand argument; the Court agreed the cited authority was inapplicable but did not identify or quote a specific fabricated citation.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Wisconsin, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In this civil action, the Removing Defendants alleged that the pro se Plaintiff hallucinated nonexistent case law citations in her motion to remand. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin addressed the motion to remand and other pending motions. While the Court agreed with the Defendants that the Plaintiff's cited authority was inapplicable, it did not identify or quote specific fabricated citations in its order. The Court denied the motion to remand, finding removal proper, and ordered the Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, noting that her previous filings were excessively long and failed to provide a short, plain statement of her claims.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Wisconsin, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

WisconsinSingle-state evidence scope
Explore WIOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtE.D. Wisconsin
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit7th Circuit
DateNov 4, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe motion to remand was denied; the court ordered the plaintiff to file a compliant amended complaint by December 4, 2025, or face dismissal.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The source identifies the use of AI as implied.

Procedural posture

The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand, denied her motion for default judgment, and denied her motion for leave to file an amended complaint, while also denying the Defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | The Removing Defendants contended that Plaintiff 'hallucinates nonexistent quotes from cases' in support of her remand argument; the Court agreed the cited authority was inapplicable but did not identify or quote a specific fabricated citation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Alaya Coleman v. RPF-Somers Investors, LLC, et al.?
The Court acknowledged the Defendants' allegation that the pro se Plaintiff hallucinated case law citations. While the Court agreed the Plaintiff's cited authority was inapplicable, it did not formally adjudicate the existence of fabricated citations or impose sanctions for them, focusing instead on procedural deficiencies and Rule 8 compliance.
Why does Alaya Coleman v. RPF-Somers Investors, LLC, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Wisconsin, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Alaya Coleman v. RPF-Somers Investors, LLC, et al.?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Alaya Coleman v. RPF-Somers Investors, LLC, et al. summary?
The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Branden Driver v. CNA Financial Corporation et al.E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 1, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsGerou v. George, Whitten, and United StatesE.D. Wisconsin · Dec 18, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsSEC v. Joseph Nantomah et al.E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsFrier v. HingissE.D. Wisconsin · Sep 15, 2023same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesPelishek v. City of SheboyganE.D. Wisconsin · Sep 18, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesArajuo v. Wedelstadt et alE.D. Wisconsin · Jan 22, 2025same court · fake citations + tort