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

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

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

E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 4, 2025

WI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotestort

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

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 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

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

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtE.D. Wisconsin

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateNov 4, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

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.

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.?: 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 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 citations Gerou v. George, Whitten, and United StatesE.D. Wisconsin · Dec 18, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations SEC v. Joseph Nantomah et al.E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Frier v. HingissE.D. Wisconsin · Sep 15, 2023same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Pelishek v. City of SheboyganE.D. Wisconsin · Sep 18, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Arajuo v. Wedelstadt et alE.D. Wisconsin · Jan 22, 2025same court · fake citations + tort

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

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

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtE.D. Wisconsin

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateNov 4, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Questions this record answers

What happened in Alaya Coleman v. RPF-Somers Investors, LLC, et al.?

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.?

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.