Daniel D’Agostino v. Circle K Stores Incorporated, et al.
D. Arizona · Apr 22, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court identified a non-existent case citation provided by the pro se plaintiff. While the court noted the error and the likely intended (but irrelevant) citation, it did not impose a formal sanction for the citation error, instead focusing its ruling on the merits of the defendant's motion to dismiss.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in D. Arizona, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
In a TCPA action against Circle K, the pro se plaintiff cited 'Navient Solutions, LLC v. Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman, 2020 WL 1864871, at *12 (D. Ariz. 2020).' The Court observed that this citation does not exist. The Court noted that the plaintiff likely intended to cite a different case, Navient Sols., LLC v. Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman, 2020 WL 1867939 (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2020), which the Court found irrelevant to the claims at issue. The Court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed on non-dismissed counts while addressing the plaintiff's procedural filings.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in D. Arizona, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The court ruled on a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, granting it in part and denying it in part, and ordered the defendant to answer the remaining claims.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Navient Solutions, LLC v. Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman, 2020 WL 1864871, at *12 (D. Ariz. 2020).' The Court found that citation does not exist, observed Circle K pointed out the error, and noted Plaintiff likely intended Navient Sols., LLC v. Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman, 2020 WL 1867939 (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2020), which is irrelevant to the claim.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Daniel D’Agostino v. Circle K Stores Incorporated, et al.?
- The court identified a non-existent case citation provided by the pro se plaintiff. While the court noted the error and the likely intended (but irrelevant) citation, it did not impose a formal sanction for the citation error, instead focusing its ruling on the merits of the defendant's motion to dismiss.
- Why does Daniel D’Agostino v. Circle K Stores Incorporated, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in D. Arizona, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Daniel D’Agostino v. Circle K Stores Incorporated, et al.?
- 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 Daniel D’Agostino v. Circle K Stores Incorporated, et al. 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.