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
HomeCasesBeenshoof v. Chin
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

Beenshoof v. Chin

W.D. Washington · May 15, 2025

WA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrialNone Adjudicated
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
Explore WAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
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.

  1. 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.

Jordan Slach v. City of Battle GroundW.D. Washington · Jul 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMerz v. City of KalamaW.D. Washington · Feb 13, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsKrystle J. Lyons v. Oak Harbor School DistrictW.D. Washington · Dec 23, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsMitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1)W.D. Washington · Oct 17, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsWilliam Nelson v. Washington Board of Industrial AppealsW.D. Washington · Jun 26, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsWard v. Amazon.com Services LLCW.D. Washington · Apr 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations