Crespo v. Tesla, Inc.
S.D. Florida · Jun 30, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. Florida
- Record ID
- crespo-v-tesla-inc-2025-06-30
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the plaintiff's motions to compel, ordered the plaintiff to apologize in writing to defense counsel, and ordered the plaintiff to pay 921 USD in attorney's fees.
- Known monetary consequence
- $921
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $921
- Procedural posture
- 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.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Plaintiff admitted to using AI.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.