Harvey v. Torrent Leasing & U.S. Bank
D. Nevada · Dec 15, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Nevada
- Record ID
- harvey-v-torrent-leasing-us-bank-2025-12-15
- Observed outcome
- The court issued a warning to the plaintiff regarding the use of AI-generated legal research and the necessity of verifying all citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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).
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- 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.
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 explicitly named ChatGPT as the tool used by the plaintiff.
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.