Anthony Wallace v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, et al.
D. Nevada · Mar 26, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Nevada
- Record ID
- anthony-wallace-v-pennymac-loan-services-llc-et-al-2026-03-26
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the defendants' motion for leave to file supplemental authority, denied the plaintiff's motion for judicial notice, and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding his future obligations to verify legal citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding his duty under FRCP 11(b)(2) to verify all legal citations. The court found that the plaintiff submitted multiple fabricated cases and false quotations, noting that such errors are frequently associated with the use of generative AI tools.
The court reasoned that citing fake authority violates FRCP 11(b)(2), wastes judicial and party resources, and harms the reputation of the courts and parties involved. It noted that generative AI often invents precedent and that such tools do not excuse a party's failure to personally verify the veracity of every citation.
Docket-number mismatches with case names are a deterministic hallucination signature — always cross-check PACER.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Contract
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order on motions to amend, dismiss, strike, and for injunctive relief, following the defendants' motion for leave to file supplemental authority regarding the plaintiff's use of fake citations.
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 identified the use of generative AI software as the likely source of the fake citations.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all case citations and quotations before filing.
- Cross-reference all cited docket numbers against official court records to ensure they correspond to the cited case name.
- Treat AI-generated research as a draft that requires independent verification against primary legal sources.
- Review all filings for potential 'hallucination signatures' such as mismatched case names and docket numbers.