HomeCasesEsterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin Norton

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Esterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin Norton

CA Washington (d1) · Mar 16, 2026

WA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that does not appear to exist; court notes the citation is fictitious and not part of the record. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA Washington (d1), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that does not appear to exist; court notes the citation is fictitious and not part of the record. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA Washington (d1), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA Washington (d1)

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMar 16, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that does not appear to exist; court notes the citation is fictitious and not part of the record.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant proffered a non-existent case citation in supplemental authority; court notes it does not exist.
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant quoted language claiming it appears in RCW 59.18.410; court found the quoted language is not in that statute.
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited statutory language and a case name together that the court indicates do not appear to exist as cited.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Esterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin Norton?: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that does not appear to exist; court notes the citation is fictitious and not part of the record. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Esterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin Norton matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA Washington (d1), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Esterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin Norton?: 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 Esterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin Norton 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.

Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑KamerathCA Washington · Jun 15, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Arthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway GroupCA Washington · Apr 20, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Gregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, WashingtonCA Washington (d3) · Mar 17, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations William McNae and Ronda McNae v. ARAG Insurance CompanyW.D. Washington · Nov 13, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Ligeri v. Amazon.com ServicesW.D. Washington · Jul 30, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations P-Three Development, LLC v. Therm Flo, Inc.CA Illinois · Jun 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that does not appear to exist; court notes the citation is fictitious and not part of the record. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA Washington (d1)

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMar 16, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that does not appear to exist; court notes the citation is fictitious and not part of the record.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant proffered a non-existent case citation in supplemental authority; court notes it does not exist.

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant quoted language claiming it appears in RCW 59.18.410; court found the quoted language is not in that statute.

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited statutory language and a case name together that the court indicates do not appear to exist as cited.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Esterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin Norton?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that does not appear to exist; court notes the citation is fictitious and not part of the record. Outcome: Warning.

Why does Esterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin Norton matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Esterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin Norton?

Which source supports this Esterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin Norton 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.