Chapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation, et al. (2)
N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 26, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- N.D. Oklahoma
- Record ID
- chapter-kris-jackson-v-bok-financial-corporation-et-al-2-2025-08-26
- Observed outcome
- The court struck the plaintiff's amended motion to disqualify and issued a show cause order for a hearing on potential Rule 11 sanctions.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court struck the plaintiff's motion and issued a show cause order for potential Rule 11 sanctions after the pro se litigant repeatedly submitted filings containing fabricated case law and non-existent quotations, despite prior warnings from the court to verify her citations.
The court reasoned that the plaintiff's repeated submission of fabricated citations and false quotations, despite prior notice and warnings, demonstrated a failure to conduct a reasonable inquiry under Rule 11(b) and suggested an improper purpose to cause unnecessary delay and increase litigation costs.
This case illustrates the judicial response to pro se litigants who use AI-generated or otherwise fabricated legal research. It highlights the court's role in enforcing Rule 11 compliance and the necessity of verifying all cited authorities to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court denied the plaintiff's motion to disqualify counsel, struck the amended motion to disqualify, and issued an order to show cause regarding potential Rule 11 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
The court record does not name a tool, but the nature of the errors implies AI usage.
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.