Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.
M.D. North Carolina · Jun 2, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- M.D. North Carolina
- Record ID
- anthony-josue-grajales-v-santander-consumer-usa-inc-et-al-2026-06-02
- Observed outcome
- The court ordered a $120 monetary penalty, stayed the case for 90 days or until payment, and required the plaintiff to attach copies of all cited authorities to future filings.
- Known monetary consequence
- $120
Why this matter warrants attention
The court imposed a $120 monetary sanction against a pro se plaintiff for filing frivolous documents and using false legal citations, likely generated by AI. The court stayed the case until the sanction is paid and mandated that the plaintiff attach copies of all cited authorities to future filings to ensure verification.
The court reasoned that the plaintiff's excessive filings and false citations, regardless of whether AI-generated, violated Rule 11 and local rules by causing unnecessary delay and burdening judicial resources. The court determined that alternative sanctions were necessary to deter future abuse, noting that the plaintiff continued to submit false citations even after they were identified by defendants.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Other
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $120
- Procedural posture
- Following a show cause hearing on May 29, 2026, the court issued an order on June 2, 2026, imposing sanctions for litigation misconduct.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court noted the plaintiff appeared to use generative AI.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.