HomeCasesChakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc.

S.D. New York · May 19, 2026

NY / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsmisrepresented authorityemploymenttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Defense Counsel cited a non-sourced authority "§ 3.01 Certification Is Crucial Step In Class Actions," which the Court found resulted from AI hallucination and lacked any identifiable source. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanction; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving LexisNexis AI with Monetary Sanction in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving LexisNexis AI with Monetary Sanction in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtS.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateMay 19, 2026

AI toolLexisNexis AI

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary Sanction

Known amount$2,712

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

LexisNexis AI is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Monetary Sanction

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Defense Counsel cited a non-sourced authority "§ 3.01 Certification Is Crucial Step In Class Actions," which the Court found resulted from AI hallucination and lacked any identifiable source.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense Counsel repeatedly relied on OConner and Haider to argue that third-party communications could not be attributed to defendants; the Court found these cases irrelevant to the agency/attribution issue and thus misapplied.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc.?: Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Defense Counsel cited a non-sourced authority "§ 3.01 Certification Is Crucial Step In Class Actions," which the Court found resulted from AI hallucination and lacked any identifiable source. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Why does Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving LexisNexis AI with Monetary Sanction in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc.?: 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 Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc. 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.

Yakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria MalvarS.D. New York · Nov 24, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Jorge Paredes Guevara v. A&P Restaurant Corp., et al.S.D. New York · Nov 18, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLCS.D. New York · Apr 30, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Flycatcher v. Affable AvenueS.D. New York · Feb 5, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al.S.D. New York · Dec 17, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense Counsel repeatedly relied on OConner and Haider to argue that third-party communications could not be attributed to defendants; the Court found these cases irrelevant to the agency/attribution issue and thus misapplied.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc.?

Why does Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc.?

Which source supports this Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc. 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.