Which source supports this Coleman & Lewis v. PNC 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.

HomeCasesColeman & Lewis v. PNC Bank, N.A.

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

Coleman & Lewis v. PNC Bank, N.A.

D. Nevada · Nov 5, 2025

NV / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations fabricated quotes contract Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a warning to the pro se plaintiffs after identifying multiple instances of AI-hallucinated legal citations and fabricated case law in their briefing. The court explicitly cautioned that any subsequent filings containing similar issues could result in formal sanctions, including the imposition of costs and fees.

Why the court cared: False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited non-existent quotes attributed to Medrano v. Flagstar Bank; the Court flagged these as inaccurate/AI-hallucinated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited non-existent quotes attributed to Guerra v. Just Mortgage, Inc.; the Court identified these as inaccurate/AI-hallucinated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed non-existent quotations to Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n; the Court noted the citation contained incorrect or fabricated quoted material. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed non-existent quotations to Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.; the Court marked these as inaccurate/AI-hallucinated citations. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs fabricated an entire case, citing 'Estate of Bowles v. Comm'r, 608 F. Appx. 693 (9th Cir. 2015)'; the Court found this citation was fabricated/misattributed (not a 9th Cir. opinion) and noted the nearby real citation was United States v. Martinez, 608 Fed. Appx. 692 (10th Cir. 2015).
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In this contract and foreclosure dispute, the District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and denied their outstanding motions. During the proceedings, the pro se plaintiffs repeatedly submitted filings containing inaccurate or AI-hallucinated legal citations. Specifically, the court identified fabricated quotes attributed to Medrano v. Flagstar Bank, Guerra v. Just Mortgage, Inc., Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, and Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. Furthermore, the plaintiffs fabricated an entire case citation, 'Estate of Bowles v. Comm'r,' which the court determined was a misattributed reference to a 10th Circuit opinion. The court issued a formal warning to the plaintiffs, stating that future filings containing similar issues may result in sanctions, including costs and fees.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

NevadaSingle-state evidence scope

Explore NVOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtD. Nevada

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateNov 5, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and issued a formal warning to the plaintiffs regarding the use of inaccurate or fabricated legal citations.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

The court explicitly identified the citations as AI-hallucinated.

Procedural posture

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs' outstanding motions as moot following a review of the amended complaint and related filings.

Correction behavior

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.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited non-existent quotes attributed to Medrano v. Flagstar Bank; the Court flagged these as inaccurate/AI-hallucinated.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited non-existent quotes attributed to Guerra v. Just Mortgage, Inc.; the Court identified these as inaccurate/AI-hallucinated.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed non-existent quotations to Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n; the Court noted the citation contained incorrect or fabricated quoted material.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed non-existent quotations to Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.; the Court marked these as inaccurate/AI-hallucinated citations.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs fabricated an entire case, citing 'Estate of Bowles v. Comm'r, 608 F. Appx. 693 (9th Cir. 2015)'; the Court found this citation was fabricated/misattributed (not a 9th Cir. opinion) and noted the nearby real citation was United States v. Martinez, 608 Fed. Appx. 692 (10th Cir. 2015).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Coleman & Lewis v. PNC Bank, N.A.?: The court issued a warning to the pro se plaintiffs after identifying multiple instances of AI-hallucinated legal citations and fabricated case law in their briefing. The court explicitly cautioned that any subsequent filings containing similar issues could result in formal sanctions, including the imposition of costs and fees.
Why does Coleman & Lewis v. PNC Bank, N.A. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Coleman & Lewis v. PNC Bank, N.A.?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Coleman & Lewis v. PNC 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.

Anthony Wallace v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Nicole Beverly Silverberg v. Steven Bonomo, et al.D. Nevada · Dec 30, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Kelly v. Financial Industry Regulatory AuthorityD. Nevada · Aug 19, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Preston House v. TH Foods, Inc.D. Nevada · Jun 18, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Seeto v. KendallD. Nevada · May 5, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Wendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual TilleryD. Nevada · Apr 6, 2026same 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 Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open D. Nevada profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology