Chan v. Khermani LLC
Wyoming Ch. · Nov 14, 2024
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- Wyoming Ch.
- Record ID
- chan-v-khermani-llc-2024-11-14
- Observed outcome
- The court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the use of fictitious legal authorities.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated_case_law
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Tort
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Trial Order of Dismissal issued by the Wyoming Chancery Court on November 14, 2024, following a show-cause notice regarding subject matter jurisdiction.
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
The court inferred the use of an artificial intelligence platform.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.