HomeCasesAnthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.

M.D. North Carolina · Jun 2, 2026

NC / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 29 cases that do not exist as cited, identified in Defendants' compilation (Doc.186-1). Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Case stayed until payment; Order to attach copies of any cited authorities to future pleadings.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanction; Case stayed until payment; Order to attach copies of any cited authorities to future pleadings; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction; Case stayed until payment; Order to attach copies of any cited authorities to future pleadings in M.D. North Carolina, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction; Case stayed until payment; Order to attach copies of any cited authorities to future pleadings in M.D. North Carolina, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

North CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtM.D. North Carolina

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit4th Circuit

DateJun 2, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeMonetary Sanction; Case stayed until payment; Order to attach copies of any cited authorities to future pleadings

Known amount$120

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

Monetary Sanction; Case stayed until payment; Order to attach copies of any cited authorities to future pleadings

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 29 cases that do not exist as cited, identified in Defendants' compilation (Doc.186-1).
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed quotations to cases where the quoted language does not appear (five instances identified).
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 77 authorities that do not contain the propositions for which they were cited.
Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Plaintiff cited four cases that had been overturned, rendering the authority outdated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 29 cases that do not exist as cited, identified in Defendants' compilation (Doc.186-1). Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Case stayed until payment; Order to attach copies of any cited authorities to future pleadings.
Why does Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction; Case stayed until payment; Order to attach copies of any cited authorities to future pleadings in M.D. North Carolina, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 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.

Bank of America v. MappM.D. North Carolina · May 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Curtin v. Watts, et al.M.D. North Carolina · May 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Brandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al.M.D. North Carolina · Apr 28, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations In re BryantM.D. North Carolina (Bankruptcy) · Nov 18, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Jamal Berry v. Early Warning ServicesE.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Edward C. Allen v. Western Governors University, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 31, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

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

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

North CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtM.D. North Carolina

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit4th Circuit

DateJun 2, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeMonetary Sanction; Case stayed until payment; Order to attach copies of any cited authorities to future pleadings

Known amount$120

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 29 cases that do not exist as cited, identified in Defendants' compilation (Doc.186-1).

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed quotations to cases where the quoted language does not appear (five instances identified).

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 77 authorities that do not contain the propositions for which they were cited.

Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Plaintiff cited four cases that had been overturned, rendering the authority outdated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.?

Why does Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.?

Which source supports this Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 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.