Which source supports this Cesareo v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 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.

HomeCasesCesareo v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

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 76/100. 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

Cesareo v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

D. New Jersey · Dec 31, 2025 · Jamel K. Semper

NJ / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations fabricated quotes employment None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court denied the plaintiff's motions after identifying that the plaintiff relied on fabricated case law and misquoted authorities. The court explicitly noted that one cited case does not exist and that other cited opinions did not contain the language attributed to them by the pro se litigant.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a Ninth Circuit opinion 'Doe v. Bogan, 93 F.3d 544, 551 (9th Cir. 1996),' which the Court was unable to locate and concluded does not appear to exist as cited. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed language to Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Loc. No. 310, 587 F.2d 1176, 1182 (D.C. Cir. 1978) that the Court could not locate in the opinion (misquoted/attributed language). || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Welling v. Alexy, 155 F.R.D. 654, 657 (N.D. Cal. 1994) for a proposition about irreparable psychological/reputational harm, but the Court was unable to locate that language in the opinion (misquoted).
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. New Jersey, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In a pro se employment discrimination action, the District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the plaintiff's motions for a declaratory judgment, a protective order, and a stay of arbitration. The court identified that the plaintiff submitted multiple fabricated legal citations and misattributed language to existing case law. Specifically, the court noted that a cited Ninth Circuit opinion, Doe v. Bogan, 93 F.3d 544 (9th Cir. 1996), does not exist. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff misquoted or falsely attributed language to Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Loc. No. 310, 587 F.2d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 1978) and Welling v. Alexy, 155 F.R.D. 654 (N.D. Cal. 1994). The court denied the motions based on these deficiencies and other procedural grounds.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. New Jersey, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

New JerseySingle-state evidence scope

Explore NJOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtD. New Jersey

Recorded decision-makerJamel K. Semper · United States District Judge

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit3rd Circuit

DateDec 31, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court denied the plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment, Motion for Protective Order, and Emergency Motion to Stay Arbitration.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The record implies AI usage through the nature of the hallucinations.

Procedural posture

The court issued an Opinion and Order denying the pro se plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment, Motion for Protective Order, and Emergency Motion to Stay Arbitration.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a Ninth Circuit opinion 'Doe v. Bogan, 93 F.3d 544, 551 (9th Cir. 1996),' which the Court was unable to locate and concluded does not appear to exist as cited.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed language to Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Loc. No. 310, 587 F.2d 1176, 1182 (D.C. Cir. 1978) that the Court could not locate in the opinion (misquoted/attributed language).
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Welling v. Alexy, 155 F.R.D. 654, 657 (N.D. Cal. 1994) for a proposition about irreparable psychological/reputational harm, but the Court was unable to locate that language in the opinion (misquoted).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Cesareo v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey?: The court denied the plaintiff's motions after identifying that the plaintiff relied on fabricated case law and misquoted authorities. The court explicitly noted that one cited case does not exist and that other cited opinions did not contain the language attributed to them by the pro se litigant.
Why does Cesareo v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. New Jersey, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Cesareo v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey?: 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 Cesareo v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 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 citations Kurelko v. BallardD. New Jersey · Aug 25, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Peterkin et al v. McIntyre et alD. New Jersey · Jun 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Zena L. Powell v. The Borough of BergenfieldD. New Jersey · May 12, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Baker v. Rastelli Foods LLCD. New Jersey · Mar 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Shaquan Pridgen v. Amazon.com Services LLCD. New Jersey · Mar 16, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Decision-maker evidencePrimary-document signature · p. 14

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open D. New Jersey profile Open Jamel K. Semper profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology