Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
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.
Crespo v. Tesla, Inc.
S.D. Florida · Jun 30, 2025
FL / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.R.D. 620, 625 (S.D. Fla. 2013) in DEs 61, 63, 78, 79, 80; the Court found this case appears nonexistent. Outcome: Plaintiff required to apologize and pay attorney's fees. In the case of Crespo v. Tesla, Inc., the pro se plaintiff, Leonardo Crespo, submitted discovery motions containing fabricated case citations and a false quote, which were identified as potentially generated by AI. The court ordered Crespo to show cause for these submissions and admitted to using AI in his filings.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Plaintiff required to apologize and pay attorney's fees; 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 required to apologize and pay attorney's fees in S.D. Florida, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.R.D. 620, 625 (S.D. Fla. 2013) in DEs 61, 63, 78, 79, 80; the Court found this case appears nonexistent. Outcome: Plaintiff required to apologize and pay attorney's fees. In the case of Crespo v. Tesla, Inc., the pro se plaintiff, Leonardo Crespo, submitted discovery motions containing fabricated case citations and a false quote, which were identified as potentially generated by AI. The court ordered Crespo to show cause for these submissions and admitted to using AI in his filings. The court acknowledged Crespo's candor and imposed sanctions requiring him to apologize to the defendant's counsel and pay reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the defendant in addressing the fake citations.(In a subsequent ruling, the court averred that the reasonable fees amount was 921 USD.)
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Plaintiff required to apologize and pay attorney's fees in S.D. Florida, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
FloridaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtS.D. Florida
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit11th Circuit
DateJun 30, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomePlaintiff required to apologize and pay attorney's fees
Known amount$921
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 required to apologize and pay attorney's fees
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.R.D. 620, 625 (S.D. Fla. 2013) in DEs 61, 63, 78, 79, 80; the Court found this case appears nonexistent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Jacobs v. Atrium Med. Corp., 2020 WL 5803503, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2020) in DEs 61, 63, 78, 79, 80; the Court found this case appears nonexistent.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted Universal City Dev. Partners, Ltd. v. Ride & Show, 230 F.R.D. 688, 695 (M.D. Fla. 2005) as saying “is tantamount to no objection at all.” (DE 78 at 2); the Court found no such quote exists in that case.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Crespo v. Tesla, Inc.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.R.D. 620, 625 (S.D. Fla. 2013) in DEs 61, 63, 78, 79, 80; the Court found this case appears nonexistent. Outcome: Plaintiff required to apologize and pay attorney's fees. In the case of Crespo v. Tesla, Inc., the pro se plaintiff, Leonardo Crespo, submitted discovery motions containing fabricated case citations and a false quote, which were identified as potentially generated by AI. The court ordered Crespo to show cause for these submissions and admitted to using AI in his filings.…
- Why does Crespo v. Tesla, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Plaintiff required to apologize and pay attorney's fees in S.D. Florida, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Crespo v. Tesla, Inc.?
- 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 Crespo v. Tesla, Inc. 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.