AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 9, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 6, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesCurry v. Capital One Auto Finance
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 90/100. 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

Curry v. Capital One Auto Finance

E.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 2026

NC / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsothertrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint, finding that the inclusion of fabricated legal citations in her filings constituted bad faith and that the proposed amendments were futile. The court also granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint for failure to state a claim.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that leave to amend should be denied when there is bad faith or when the amendment would be futile. It determined that the plaintiff's inclusion of fabricated citations in her proposed amended complaint constituted bad faith, and that the underlying claims failed to state a plausible cause of action under the FCRA or state law.
Why it matters now
Fabricated statutory provisions now constitute bad faith and support denial of leave to amend — not just admonishment.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Proposed amended complaint asserted fictitious provisions of a purported North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA); the court identified these statutory provisions as fabricated and tied them to likely AI drafting. Outcome: Leave to amend denied. The court found the plaintiff's proposed amended complaints included fabricated legal authorities — including fictitious provisions of a purported North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act and other fabricated citations — and concluded the filings were likely drafted with AI. The court denied leave to amend as futile and constituted bad faith due to the fabricated citations, and granted defendant's motion to dismiss.

Operational lesson

Fabricated statutory provisions now constitute bad faith and support denial of leave to amend — not just admonishment.

Record details

North CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NCOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtE.D. North Carolina
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit4th Circuit
DateMar 26, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeDefendant's motion to dismiss granted; plaintiff's motion for leave to amend denied; case closed.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court noted the plaintiff likely used artificial intelligence to draft her filings.

Procedural posture

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Legal Norm | Proposed amended complaint asserted fictitious provisions of a purported North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA); the court identified these statutory provisions as fabricated and tied them to likely AI drafting.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Second proposed amended complaint contained fabricated case citations; the court found the inclusion of fabricated citations constituted bad faith and a basis to deny leave to amend.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Curry v. Capital One Auto Finance?
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint, finding that the inclusion of fabricated legal citations in her filings constituted bad faith and that the proposed amendments were futile. The court also granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint for failure to state a claim.
Why does Curry v. Capital One Auto Finance matter for legal AI risk?
Fabricated statutory provisions now constitute bad faith and support denial of leave to amend — not just admonishment.
What does the public record establish about Curry v. Capital One Auto Finance?
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 Curry v. Capital One Auto Finance 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.

Letts v. Avidien TechnologiesE.D. North Carolina · Dec 16, 2024same court · pro se + fake citationsReketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLCE.D. North Carolina · Jan 13, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsChristine Thomas v. United States Department of Justice, et al.E.D. North Carolina · Jul 15, 2026same court · fake citations + trialDerence V. Fivehouse v. United States Department of Defense et al.E.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2026same court · fake citations + trialAnthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.M.D. North Carolina · Jun 2, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsUnited States of America v. Lorenzio Reshaud SimmonsE.D. North Carolina · Oct 3, 2025same court · fake citations + trial