Crespo v. Tesla, Inc.
S.D. Florida · Jun 30, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court sanctioned a pro se plaintiff for submitting AI-generated filings containing fabricated case law and false quotes. The sanctions required the plaintiff to provide a written apology to opposing counsel and pay 921 USD in attorney's fees to the defendant for the costs incurred in addressing the improper filings and a frivolous discovery motion.
- Why the court cared
- The court exercised its inherent authority to sanction the misuse of AI when it affects the court's docket and case disposition, noting that while pro se pleadings are construed liberally, such leniency does not permit the submission of fake authorities or the violation of procedural rules.
- 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.)
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
What the record establishes about AI use
Plaintiff admitted to using AI.
The matter arose during discovery in a civil action, where the court addressed multiple motions to compel and a motion to strike regarding the plaintiff's use of hallucinated case law.
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.?
- The court sanctioned a pro se plaintiff for submitting AI-generated filings containing fabricated case law and false quotes. The sanctions required the plaintiff to provide a written apology to opposing counsel and pay 921 USD in attorney's fees to the defendant for the costs incurred in addressing the improper filings and a frivolous discovery motion.
- 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.