Courtney Voyton v. Joseph Voyton, et al.

Why this matter warrants attention

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff cited 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522 and described it as governing a government lawyer's professional responsibility, but the court found the statute actually concerns notice of intent to sue and that the plaintiff misrepresented the law. Outcome: Court admonished plaintiff for AI misuse, required future affidavit disclosing AI use and citations checked, warned of sanctions (including striking pleadings/dismissal) for future unchecked AI-generated errors; complaint dismissed with leave to amend.. The district court found that the pro se plaintiff's filings were aided by generative AI and contained at least one clear hallucination: she misrepresented the substance of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522 and advanced irrelevant 'ghost' doctrines (Younger abstention, Rooker-Feldman, quasi-judicial immunity) that the R&R never discussed. The court admonished the plaintiff, ordered future affidavits disclosing AI use and identification of sections drafted by AI, required certification that citations were checked, and warned that further unchecked AI misuse could result in sanctions up to striking pleadings and dismissing claims with prejudice.