AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Nov 3, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 29, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesFernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, et al.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Fernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, et al.

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

Cite this record

S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2026

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesemploymentWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition brief contained citations and quoted authority that Defendants say do not exist; Court noted these appear to be fabricated case citations likely from AI. Outcome: Warning: the court cautioned the pro se plaintiff that future submissions must contain only accurate citations and that he may be penalized if they do not (2026 WL 2212887, PDF p. 4).

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning: the court cautioned the pro se plaintiff that future submissions must contain only accurate citations and that he may be penalized if they do not (2026 WL 2212887, PDF p. 4). The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court cautioned the pro se plaintiff that future submissions must contain only accurate citations and that he may be penalized if they do not (2026 WL 2212887, PDF p. 4) in S.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition brief contained citations and quoted authority that Defendants say do not exist; Court noted these appear to be fabricated case citations likely from AI. Outcome: Warning: the court cautioned the pro se plaintiff that future submissions must contain only accurate citations and that he may be penalized if they do not (2026 WL 2212887, PDF p. 4).

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court cautioned the pro se plaintiff that future submissions must contain only accurate citations and that he may be penalized if they do not (2026 WL 2212887, PDF p. 4) in S.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtS.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateJul 31, 2026
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning: the court cautioned the pro se plaintiff that future submissions must contain only accurate citations and that he may be penalized if they do not (2026 WL 2212887, PDF p. 4)
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo

Corrected 2026-11-02: see the corrections log.

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: the court cautioned the pro se plaintiff that future submissions must contain only accurate citations and that he may be penalized if they do not (2026 WL 2212887, PDF p. 4)

Correction behavior

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition brief contained citations and quoted authority that Defendants say do not exist; Court noted these appear to be fabricated case citations likely from AI.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Fernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, et al.?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition brief contained citations and quoted authority that Defendants say do not exist; Court noted these appear to be fabricated case citations likely from AI. Outcome: Warning: the court cautioned the pro se plaintiff that future submissions must contain only accurate citations and that he may be penalized if they do not (2026 WL 2212887, PDF p. 4).
Why does Fernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court cautioned the pro se plaintiff that future submissions must contain only accurate citations and that he may be penalized if they do not (2026 WL 2212887, PDF p. 4) in S.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Fernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, 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 Fernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, 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.

Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLCS.D. New York · Apr 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsViral Bhagat v. Anuja Sharad ShahS.D. New York · Apr 6, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsDonte McClellon v. E. Rickard, Warden of FCI Otisville, et al.S.D. New York · Mar 11, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsAvalon Holdings Corp. v. Guy GentileS.D. New York · Jan 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsTameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.S.D. New York · Nov 26, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsYakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria MalvarS.D. New York · Nov 24, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsWaggeh v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 1-2 et al.S.D. New York · May 16, 2026same court · employment + trial

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Before the next filing goes out, review the workflow behind it.

These records show where AI-assisted filings went wrong. AI Vortex works with law firms and legal teams on one AI-assisted workflow at a time: who reviews the output, who signs, and what source trail it leaves. Operations design, not legal advice.

Review a workflow