Farag v. Persante et al
M.D. Florida · Jan 26, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff after identifying multiple fabricated case citations, misquoted statutes, and misrepresented exhibits in the complaint. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and explicitly warned that future use of generative AI resulting in similar errors could trigger Rule 11 sanctions.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Holt v. Crown Builders, Inc., 627 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)'; court found this authority does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Bennett v. Bivins, 685 Case 8:25-cv-03056-SDM-AEP,' which the court found to be nonexistent or erroneous. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff misquoted Section 733.903, Florida Statutes; the quoted language does not appear in the statute and the court corrected the actual statutory text. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff claimed Exhibit 1 was an entry of clerk's default, but the court found Exhibit 1 was not an entry of default. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff asserted Exhibit 3 was a 'formal Certificate of Default'; court found Exhibit 3 was the plaintiff's motion for default, not an entered order. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff alleged the lawyer appeared 'without any lawful authority or court approval,' but Exhibit 5 was the lawyer's notice of appearance filed in compliance with rules.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. Florida, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Why this matter is tracked
In a pro se action, the plaintiff submitted a complaint containing multiple fabricated case citations, misquoted statutes, and misrepresented exhibits. Specifically, the plaintiff cited nonexistent cases, including 'Holt v. Crown Builders, Inc.' and 'Bennett v. Bivins,' and misquoted Section 733.903 of the Florida Statutes. The court also found that the plaintiff misrepresented the nature of several exhibits, including clerk's motions and notices of appearance. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding the potential use of generative artificial intelligence in drafting filings. The court cautioned that further submissions containing fabricated authority, misquotations, or misrepresentations of the record may result in sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. Florida, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court warned against the use of generative artificial intelligence.
The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff until February 16, 2026, to file an amended complaint.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Holt v. Crown Builders, Inc., 627 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)'; court found this authority does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Bennett v. Bivins, 685 Case 8:25-cv-03056-SDM-AEP,' which the court found to be nonexistent or erroneous.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff misquoted Section 733.903, Florida Statutes; the quoted language does not appear in the statute and the court corrected the actual statutory text.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff claimed Exhibit 1 was an entry of clerk's default, but the court found Exhibit 1 was not an entry of default.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff asserted Exhibit 3 was a 'formal Certificate of Default'; court found Exhibit 3 was the plaintiff's motion for default, not an entered order.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff alleged the lawyer appeared 'without any lawful authority or court approval,' but Exhibit 5 was the lawyer's notice of appearance filed in compliance with rules.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Farag v. Persante et al?
- The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff after identifying multiple fabricated case citations, misquoted statutes, and misrepresented exhibits in the complaint. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and explicitly warned that future use of generative AI resulting in similar errors could trigger Rule 11 sanctions.
- Why does Farag v. Persante et al matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. Florida, with the listed outcome: Warning.
- What does the public record establish about Farag v. Persante et al?
- 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 Farag v. Persante 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.