AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAzad Alamgir Kabir v. WebMD
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Azad Alamgir Kabir v. WebMD

D. New Jersey · Feb 3, 2026

NJ / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsiptrialWarningStruck Filing
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court struck the plaintiff's non-compliant filing and issued a formal warning. The judge explicitly cautioned that continued use of hallucinated citations or undisclosed generative AI in future submissions may result in a pre-filing injunction or other appropriate sanctions.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case (Fairfield Indus. v. EP Energy); the court identified it as a hallucinated citation, treated it as invalid, and warned of possible sanctions for such citations.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. New Jersey, with the listed outcome: Struck filings; warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a patent and copyright infringement action, the pro se plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with the court's filing rules, including the Alternate Document Submission (ADS) system and direct communication protocols. The court specifically identified that the plaintiff's opposition to a motion to dismiss relied on hallucinated case citations, including a non-existent case, 'Fairfield Indus. v. EP Energy E&P Co.' The court noted that it had previously warned the plaintiff regarding the use of hallucinated citations. Consequently, the court struck the non-compliant filing, denied the plaintiff's motions for procedural relief with prejudice, and issued a formal warning that continued reliance on hallucinated citations or undisclosed use of generative AI could result in a pre-filing injunction or other sanctions.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. New Jersey, with the listed outcome: Struck filings; warning.

Record details

New JerseySingle-state evidence scope
Explore NJOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. New Jersey
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit3rd Circuit
DateFeb 3, 2026
UN
AI toolunspecified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court struck the plaintiff's filing and issued a formal warning regarding potential future sanctions.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court refers to the 'undisclosed use of generative artificial intelligence'.

Procedural posture

The matter came before the court on the pro se plaintiff's motions seeking to vacate prior orders, obtain direct CM/ECF filing access, and compel the docketing of submissions.

Correction behavior

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case (Fairfield Indus. v. EP Energy); the court identified it as a hallucinated citation, treated it as invalid, and warned of possible sanctions for such citations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Azad Alamgir Kabir v. WebMD?
The court struck the plaintiff's non-compliant filing and issued a formal warning. The judge explicitly cautioned that continued use of hallucinated citations or undisclosed generative AI in future submissions may result in a pre-filing injunction or other appropriate sanctions.
Why does Azad Alamgir Kabir v. WebMD matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. New Jersey, with the listed outcome: Struck filings; warning.
What does the public record establish about Azad Alamgir Kabir v. WebMD?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Azad Alamgir Kabir v. WebMD 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.

Santos v. Hoboken Public School District, et al.D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsKurelko v. BallardD. New Jersey · Aug 25, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsPeterkin et al v. McIntyre et alD. New Jersey · Jun 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsZena L. Powell v. The Borough of BergenfieldD. New Jersey · May 12, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBaker v. Rastelli Foods LLCD. New Jersey · Mar 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsShaquan Pridgen v. Amazon.com Services LLCD. New Jersey · Mar 16, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations