Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0SE4D6AGenerated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Curry v. Capital One Auto Finance

E.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
E.D. North Carolina
Record ID
curry-v-capital-one-auto-finance-2026-03-26
Observed outcome
Defendant's motion to dismiss granted; plaintiff's motion for leave to amend denied; case closed.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Fabricated_legal_authority
  • Hallucinated_statutory_provisions
  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Other
  • Trial
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
AI (unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
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.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

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

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).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
  3. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.