Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc.
W.D. Washington · Oct 17, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the citation of non-existent case law. The judge explicitly noted that the cited authority could not be verified and cautioned that future reliance on hallucinated legal contentions would trigger sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
- Why the court cared
- The Court reasoned that the cited case 'Board of Trustees v. RBS Group, 2008 WL 5127215' does not exist in legal databases, violating the requirement under Rule 11(b)(2) that legal contentions be warranted by existing law.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates the judicial response to the use of AI-generated 'hallucinated' citations by pro se litigants. It reinforces the court's expectation that all legal authorities must be verified for existence and accuracy before submission.
Why this matter is tracked
In a pro se action against Amazon.com, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington addressed a motion to proceed toward default judgment without formal service. The Court denied the motion, clarifying that the waiver of service process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) is optional for defendants and does not excuse a plaintiff from effecting service. Additionally, the Court identified that the plaintiff cited a non-existent case, 'Board of Trustees v. RBS Group, 2008 WL 5127215,' which could not be verified in legal databases. The Court warned the plaintiff that citing hallucinated legal authority violates Rule 11(b)(2) and that future submissions of fake law would subject the plaintiff to potential sanctions.
This case illustrates the judicial response to the use of AI-generated 'hallucinated' citations by pro se litigants. It reinforces the court's expectation that all legal authorities must be verified for existence and accuracy before submission.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Order denying Plaintiff's motion to proceed toward default judgment without U.S. Marshal service.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Board of Trustees v. RBS Group, 2008 WL 5127215;" the Court was unable to verify the case in legal databases and characterized it as made-up, warning of Rule 11 sanctions for future fake citations.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc.?
- The Court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the citation of non-existent case law. The judge explicitly noted that the cited authority could not be verified and cautioned that future reliance on hallucinated legal contentions would trigger sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
- Why does Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates the judicial response to the use of AI-generated 'hallucinated' citations by pro se litigants. It reinforces the court's expectation that all legal authorities must be verified for existence and accuracy before submission.
- What does the public record establish about Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc.?
- 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 Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc. 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.