Chan v. Khermani LLC
Wyoming Ch. · Nov 14, 2024
What happened in this matter?
The Wyoming Chancery Court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant after the party submitted a filing containing multiple fictitious case citations, which the court identified as AI-generated hallucinations. The court determined that while the conduct violated Rule 11, a warning was sufficient given that the case was simultaneously dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the citations were fictitious because they could not be located and contained logical impossibilities, such as referencing a court's function prior to its existence. Under Rule 11, the court determined that citing fake opinions constitutes an abuse of the adversary system, but concluded that a warning was the appropriate sanction because the case was already being dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates judicial responses to pro se litigants using AI-generated fake citations. It highlights the court's reliance on Rule 11 to address the 'abuse of the adversary system' while demonstrating that sanctions may be tailored to the procedural posture of the case.
Why this matter is tracked
In a pro se action before the Wyoming Chancery Court, the plaintiff submitted a response letter containing four citations to Wyoming Supreme Court cases that the court could not locate. The court determined these citations were fictitious and likely the result of AI-generated hallucinations, noting that one cited case purportedly discussed the Chancery Court's efficiency a decade before the court's creation. Citing Rule 11, the court characterized the use of fake opinions as an abuse of the adversary system. Because the underlying case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court issued a formal warning regarding future filings containing fictitious law, rather than imposing monetary or other professional sanctions.
This case illustrates judicial responses to pro se litigants using AI-generated fake citations. It highlights the court's reliance on Rule 11 to address the 'abuse of the adversary system' while demonstrating that sanctions may be tailored to the procedural posture of the case.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court inferred the use of an artificial intelligence platform.
Trial Order of Dismissal issued by the Wyoming Chancery Court on November 14, 2024, following a show-cause notice regarding subject matter jurisdiction.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Meyer v. Campbell, 2015 WY 66, 351 P.3d 930' with a brief holding; court unable to locate the case and deemed it fictitious/AI-generated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Sullivan v. Johnson, 2006 WY 116, 142 P.3d 369' with a summary; court could not find the opinion and concluded it was fabricated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Smith v. Clark, 2018 WY 17, 410 P.3d 125' and summarized its holding; court was unable to locate the decision and treated it as a fictitious citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Wyoming Trust Company v. First Bank of Wyoming, 2010 WY 61, 231 P.3d 257' claiming the Wyoming Supreme Court recognized the Chancery Court's unique role; court found the citation fictitious and noted the cited opinion could not have said this (chancery court did not exist at that time).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Footnote example of a fabricated authority: 'Smith v. ABC Corporation, 321 S.W.3d 123 (Mo. App. 2010)' and an attributed quote do not exist, illustrating a fake opinion and false quotation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Chan v. Khermani LLC?
- The Wyoming Chancery Court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant after the party submitted a filing containing multiple fictitious case citations, which the court identified as AI-generated hallucinations. The court determined that while the conduct violated Rule 11, a warning was sufficient given that the case was simultaneously dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Why does Chan v. Khermani LLC matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates judicial responses to pro se litigants using AI-generated fake citations. It highlights the court's reliance on Rule 11 to address the 'abuse of the adversary system' while demonstrating that sanctions may be tailored to the procedural posture of the case.
- What does the public record establish about Chan v. Khermani LLC?
- 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 Chan v. Khermani LLC 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.