Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Beenshoof v. Chin
W.D. Washington · May 15, 2025
WA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a nonexistent case; the Court could not locate it on Westlaw, Lexis, or the internet and warned that citing nonexistent authority may warrant Rule 11 sanctions. Outcome: No sanction imposed; court reminded Plaintiff of Rule 11 obligations.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is No sanction imposed; court reminded Plaintiff of Rule 11 obligations; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with No sanction imposed; court reminded Plaintiff of Rule 11 obligations in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a nonexistent case; the Court could not locate it on Westlaw, Lexis, or the internet and warned that citing nonexistent authority may warrant Rule 11 sanctions. Outcome: No sanction imposed; court reminded Plaintiff of Rule 11 obligations.
AI Use
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, cited “Darling v. Linde, Inc., No. 21-cv-01258, 2023 WL 2320117 (D. Or. Feb. 28, 2023)” in briefing. The court stated it could not locate the case in any major legal database or via internet search and noted this could trigger Rule 11 sanctions if not based on a reasonable inquiry. The ruling cited Saxena v. Martinez-Hernandez as a cautionary example involving AI hallucinations, suggesting the court suspected similar conduct here.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with No sanction imposed; court reminded Plaintiff of Rule 11 obligations in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope
CourtW.D. Washington
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMay 15, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeNo sanction imposed; court reminded Plaintiff of Rule 11 obligations
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
No sanction imposed; court reminded Plaintiff of Rule 11 obligations
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a nonexistent case; the Court could not locate it on Westlaw, Lexis, or the internet and warned that citing nonexistent authority may warrant Rule 11 sanctions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Beenshoof v. Chin?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a nonexistent case; the Court could not locate it on Westlaw, Lexis, or the internet and warned that citing nonexistent authority may warrant Rule 11 sanctions. Outcome: No sanction imposed; court reminded Plaintiff of Rule 11 obligations.
- Why does Beenshoof v. Chin matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with No sanction imposed; court reminded Plaintiff of Rule 11 obligations in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Beenshoof v. Chin?
- 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 Beenshoof v. Chin 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.