Which source supports this Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC 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.

HomeCasesDana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC

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 81/100. 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

Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC

W.D. Washington · Jan 29, 2026

WA / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations fabricated quotes misrepresented authority Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court denied the plaintiff's motion for court-assisted service and issued a warning regarding her use of AI-generated or hallucinated legal citations, cautioning that future submissions of non-existent authority could result in formal sanctions under Rule 11.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Brockmeyer v. May but the authority does not support the proposition or contain the quoted text; court identified it among inaccurate/misused citations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Freedom Watch, Inc. v. OPEC but the opinion does not contain the text she quotes; court listed it as an inaccurate citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. Porsche.net and allegedly misquoted or misapplied its text; court flagged it as not supporting her proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Gurung v. Malhotra but the text cited is not present in that authority; court included it among suspect citations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited In re LLS Am., LLC but the court found the citation did not support her quoted text and listed it among problematic citations. || Fabricated: Case Law | The opinion contains multiple citation references that are incorrect or do not actually exist; Editor's Note preserves these invalid citations as part of the record.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a pro se tort action against GSK PLC, the plaintiff moved for court-assisted service of process under Rule 4(c)(3). In her motion, the plaintiff cited several legal authorities that the court found were either misrepresented or did not exist. The court denied the motion for court-assisted service, noting that the plaintiff could utilize other competent forwarding authorities under the Hague Service Convention. Regarding the citations, the court observed that they bore the hallmarks of generative AI-driven hallucinations. The court issued a formal warning to the plaintiff, reminding her of her obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 to ensure that legal contentions are warranted by existing law and that citations are accurate.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

Explore WAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtW.D. Washington

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJan 29, 2026

AI toolGenerative artificial intelligence (unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeMotion denied; court issued a formal warning to the pro se litigant regarding the submission of hallucinated legal citations.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court identified the citations as bearing the hallmarks of generative AI.

Procedural posture

Order denying plaintiff's motion for court-assisted service of process.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Brockmeyer v. May but the authority does not support the proposition or contain the quoted text; court identified it among inaccurate/misused citations.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Freedom Watch, Inc. v. OPEC but the opinion does not contain the text she quotes; court listed it as an inaccurate citation.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. Porsche.net and allegedly misquoted or misapplied its text; court flagged it as not supporting her proposition.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Gurung v. Malhotra but the text cited is not present in that authority; court included it among suspect citations.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited In re LLS Am., LLC but the court found the citation did not support her quoted text and listed it among problematic citations.
Fabricated: Case Law | The opinion contains multiple citation references that are incorrect or do not actually exist; Editor's Note preserves these invalid citations as part of the record.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC?: The court denied the plaintiff's motion for court-assisted service and issued a warning regarding her use of AI-generated or hallucinated legal citations, cautioning that future submissions of non-existent authority could result in formal sanctions under Rule 11.
Why does Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC 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.

Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (2)W.D. Washington · Jan 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ward v. Amazon.com Services LLCW.D. Washington · Apr 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (2)W.D. Washington · Mar 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1)W.D. Washington · Mar 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Merz v. City of KalamaW.D. Washington · Feb 13, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Valve Corporation v. Rothschild et al.W.D. Washington · Feb 9, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open W.D. Washington profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology