Graciela Dela Torre v. Davies Life & Health, Inc., et al.
N.D. Illinois · Apr 11, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- N.D. Illinois
- Record ID
- graciela-dela-torre-v-davies-life-health-inc-et-al-2025-04-11
- Observed outcome
- Plaintiff's motions for default judgment were denied; defendant's request to waive service was granted.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court denied the plaintiff's motions for default judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to effectuate service and relied on frivolous, misrepresented, and fabricated legal citations. The court granted the defendant's request to waive service and set a deadline for a response to the complaint.
The court reasoned that the plaintiff's citations were frivolous because they either misidentified the court of origin, involved irrelevant subject matter, or did not exist in the cited jurisdiction, thereby failing to support the plaintiff's argument regarding service of process.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in N.D. Illinois, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Misrepresented_legal_authority
- Misrepresented_statutory_provisions
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Minute entry denying plaintiff's motions for default judgment and granting defendant's request to waive service.
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 record does not name a tool, but the nature of the errors implies AI usage.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.