Farag v. Persante et al
M.D. Florida · Jan 26, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- M.D. Florida
- Record ID
- farag-v-persante-et-al-2026-01-26
- Observed outcome
- The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the court issued a formal warning regarding the use of generative AI and the accuracy of future filings.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. Florida, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Misquoted Statutes
- Misrepresented Exhibits And Submissions
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff until February 16, 2026, to file an amended complaint.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court warned against the use of generative artificial intelligence.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.
- Ensure required disclosures are accurate and timely.