HomeCasesClark v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Clark v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

E.D. Michigan · Aug 19, 2025

MI / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation 'United States v. Provident Bank, 2021 WL 1985046, at 2 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2021)' cannot be located and likely does not exist. Outcome: Plaintiff's motion denied as frivolous; reply and sur-reply struck; plaintiff ordered to show cause.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Plaintiff's motion denied as frivolous; reply and sur-reply struck; plaintiff ordered to show cause; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Plaintiff's motion denied as frivolous; reply and sur-reply struck; plaintiff ordered to show cause in E.D. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Plaintiff's motion denied as frivolous; reply and sur-reply struck; plaintiff ordered to show cause in E.D. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

MichiganSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtE.D. Michigan

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit6th Circuit

DateAug 19, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomePlaintiff's motion denied as frivolous; reply and sur-reply struck; plaintiff ordered to show cause

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Plaintiff's motion denied as frivolous; reply and sur-reply struck; plaintiff ordered to show cause

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation 'United States v. Provident Bank, 2021 WL 1985046, at 2 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2021)' cannot be located and likely does not exist.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Gibson v. Rosati, 2017 WL 1155765 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017)' as a citation that does not appear to exist or is not retrievable.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted 'Jones v. TransUnion LLC, 2022 WL 407915 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2022)' as a referenced citation that could not be located and may be fictitious.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Court observed Beaudry v. TeleCheck Servs., Inc., 579 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 2009) was cited by the plaintiff for a principle the case does not address (misapplied precedent).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Clark v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation 'United States v. Provident Bank, 2021 WL 1985046, at 2 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2021)' cannot be located and likely does not exist. Outcome: Plaintiff's motion denied as frivolous; reply and sur-reply struck; plaintiff ordered to show cause.
Why does Clark v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Plaintiff's motion denied as frivolous; reply and sur-reply struck; plaintiff ordered to show cause in E.D. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Clark v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.?: 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 Clark v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 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.

Patrick C. Shaltry v. Donna Collins, et al.E.D. Michigan · Jun 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Pizzimenti v. City of Detroit, et al.E.D. Michigan · Mar 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Rachel Jones v. Experian Information SolutionsE.D. Michigan · Dec 29, 2025same court · pro se + misrepresented authority Evans, et al. v. Robertson et al. (3)E.D. Michigan · Nov 20, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Ali v. IT People CorporationE.D. Michigan · Sep 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Evans et al v. Robertson et al (1)E.D. Michigan · May 21, 2025same 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

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

Record details

MichiganSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtE.D. Michigan

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit6th Circuit

DateAug 19, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomePlaintiff's motion denied as frivolous; reply and sur-reply struck; plaintiff ordered to show cause

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation 'United States v. Provident Bank, 2021 WL 1985046, at 2 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2021)' cannot be located and likely does not exist.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Gibson v. Rosati, 2017 WL 1155765 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017)' as a citation that does not appear to exist or is not retrievable.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted 'Jones v. TransUnion LLC, 2022 WL 407915 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2022)' as a referenced citation that could not be located and may be fictitious.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Court observed Beaudry v. TeleCheck Servs., Inc., 579 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 2009) was cited by the plaintiff for a principle the case does not address (misapplied precedent).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Clark v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.?

Why does Clark v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Clark v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.?

Which source supports this Clark v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 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.