Carlos Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
D. New Mexico · Nov 25, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. New Mexico
- Record ID
- carlos-maturin-v-t-mobile-usa-inc-2025-11-25
- Observed outcome
- The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion for terminating sanctions and granting in part the defendant's motion for sanctions, specifically ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant's reasonable attorney's fees and expenses.
- Known monetary consequence
- $8,640
Why this matter warrants attention
The court recommended imposing monetary sanctions against the pro se plaintiff for submitting fabricated legal citations and failing to comply with discovery obligations. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's reasonable attorney's fees and expenses related to investigating the false citations, responding to the sanctions motions, and the missed deposition.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Keller v. Bd. of Educ., 182 F.R.D. 871 (D.N.M. 1998)' in multiple filings; the court found that citation does not exist (a similarly named, different-year decision exists). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Ford v. BNSF Ry. Co., 709 F.3d 715 (10th Cir. 2013)' in multiple filings; the court found this reported Tenth Circuit citation does not exist (similar-named but different case exists in another court). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Rogers v. NYU Langone Hospitals, 2023 WL 2705769' in his first motion for sanctions; the court found this case does not exist and Defendant had pointed this out.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. New Mexico, with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Failure To Verify Citations
- Discovery Non Compliance
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Employment
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $8,640
- Procedural posture
- Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (PFRD) on cross-motions for sanctions.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Court noted plaintiff's potential use of AI for drafting.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Escalate and correct a suspect filing promptly, with a documented response.