Hanson v. Nest Home Lending, LLC et al.
D. Colorado · Nov 28, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Colorado
- Record ID
- hanson-v-nest-home-lending-llc-et-al-2025-11-28
- Observed outcome
- The court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring plaintiffs to explain their conduct and verify their legal research methods by November 7, 2025, under threat of potential sanctions.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring pro se plaintiffs to explain their submission of filings containing fabricated case citations, misrepresented legal propositions, and false quotes. The court warned that failure to justify this conduct under Rule 11(b) could lead to sanctions, including dismissal of claims or filing restrictions.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Motion cites People ex rel. State Bd. of Equalization v. Hively, 336 P.2d 721 (1959) for a proposition about declaratory relief and ownership clarity that the case does not establish. || Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint cites Reagan v. Investors Mtg. Co., 977 P.2d 299 (Colo. App. 1999); court found no such case (Westlaw returns unrelated State v. Maier). || Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint cites In re Medina, 2012 WL 1368983 (Bankr. D. Colo.); court found no results for that citation. || False Quotes: Case Law | Motion to Disqualify quotes language attributed to Weeks v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-89, but the quoted language does not appear in that opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Motion to Remand attributes the parenthetical proposition about remandability of quiet title/foreclosure disputes to Easton v. Crossland Mortgage Corp., but Easton did not address that issue. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Motion for Declaratory Judgment cites Koon v. Barmettler, 301 P.2d 713 (1956) for the proposition that declaratory judgment is appropriate to resolve quiet title, but Koon did not address that subject. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Response cites Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-41-201 to support a joinder rule for quiet title actions; the cited statute actually pertains to homestead exemptions and is unrelated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Response cites First Nat’l Bank of Greeley v. Conway, 34 Colo. 372, 83 P. 361 (1905); court found that citation does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Response cites Hendricks v. Bank of America, N.A., 408 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. App. 2013); court found no such Texas Court of Appeals decision and noted the Ninth Circuit Hendricks decision cited does not support Plaintiffs' proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Response cites Goodman v. Heritage Savings & Loan Ass’n, 390 P.2d 712 (Colo. 1964); court determined this case does not exist as cited. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cite In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897 (9th Cir. BAP 2011) for a proposition about the National Bank Act and recording requirements; the opinion exists but does not discuss the National Bank Act or recording requirements as Plaintiffs claim. || False Quotes: Case Law | Motion to Disqualify quotes material attributed to Cole v. Ruidoso Mun. Schs., but the quoted material is not present in that opinion.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Struck Filing; Order for future filings to include certificate; Required contact with the Federal Pro Se Clinic.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated_case_law
- Misrepresented_case_law
- False_quotes
- Misrepresented_legal_norm
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order to Show Cause issued by Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella on October 17, 2025, requiring plaintiffs to respond by November 7, 2025.
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 noted plaintiffs appear to have used generative AI but did not identify a specific tool.
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.