AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesHarvey v. Torrent Leasing & U.S. Bank
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Harvey v. Torrent Leasing & U.S. Bank

D. Nevada · Dec 15, 2025

NV / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the submission of fabricated legal quotations and miscited authorities, which the court attributed to the use of generative AI tools like ChatGPT. The court emphasized that litigants must verify the accuracy of all cited authorities to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2).

Why the court cared
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff included a fabricated/incorrect quotation attributed to Nesses v. Shepard; the court identified the quotation as fake. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Flangas v. Perfekt Marketing' but the citation provided corresponded to Lawrence v. Clark County, indicating a miscitation or incorrect authority.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a civil rights action, the District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the plaintiff's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. During the proceedings, the court identified that the pro se plaintiff submitted filings containing fabricated legal quotations and miscited authorities. The court explicitly attributed these errors to the use of generative AI tools like ChatGPT. While the court did not impose monetary sanctions, it issued a formal warning to the parties regarding the obligation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) to verify the accuracy of all legal citations and authorities before filing, noting that continued reliance on hallucinated content may result in future sanctions.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

NevadaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NVOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Nevada
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateDec 15, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court issued a warning to the plaintiff regarding the use of AI-generated legal research and the necessity of verifying all citations.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The court explicitly named ChatGPT as the tool used by the plaintiff.

Procedural posture

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, dismissed the plaintiff's claims with and without prejudice, vacated a prior entry of default against a co-defendant, and closed the case.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff included a fabricated/incorrect quotation attributed to Nesses v. Shepard; the court identified the quotation as fake.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Flangas v. Perfekt Marketing' but the citation provided corresponded to Lawrence v. Clark County, indicating a miscitation or incorrect authority.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Harvey v. Torrent Leasing & U.S. Bank?
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the submission of fabricated legal quotations and miscited authorities, which the court attributed to the use of generative AI tools like ChatGPT. The court emphasized that litigants must verify the accuracy of all cited authorities to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2).
Why does Harvey v. Torrent Leasing & U.S. Bank matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Harvey v. Torrent Leasing & U.S. Bank?
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 Harvey v. Torrent Leasing & U.S. Bank 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.

Seeto v. KendallD. Nevada · May 5, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsEdward C. Allen v. Western Governors University, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsJames Fahey v. Wally’s Las Vegas, LLC, et al.D. Nevada · Dec 10, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsJackson v. United States DHSD. Nevada · Oct 1, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsSaxena v. Martinez-Hernandez et al.D. Nevada · Feb 18, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsKelly v. Financial Industry Regulatory AuthorityD. Nevada · Aug 19, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations