Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0QV58XRGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc.

W.D. Washington · Oct 17, 2025

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
W.D. Washington
Record ID
artur-sargsyan-v-amazoncom-inc-2025-10-17
Observed outcome
The Court denied the motion for default judgment and issued a warning regarding Rule 11 compliance for future filings.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Contract
  • Trial
  • Warning
AI attribution
Reported
Recorded tool
AI (implied, unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Order denying Plaintiff's motion to proceed toward default judgment without U.S. Marshal service.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

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

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).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
  3. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.