In re Bittrex
D. Delaware · Oct 22, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Delaware
- Record ID
- in-re-bittrex-2025-10-22
- Observed outcome
- The Court denied the Appellants' Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Motion for Rehearing.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court denied the appellants' motion for enlargement of time to file for rehearing. The decision was based on the appellants' failure to demonstrate excusable neglect, compounded by their reliance on fabricated and misrepresented case law, which the Court noted may have been generated by artificial intelligence.
The Court reasoned that the appellants failed to meet the 'excusable neglect' standard under the Pioneer factors. It determined that the delay was within the appellants' control and that their reliance on nonexistent or misrepresented case law—potentially generated by AI—demonstrated a lack of good faith and a failure to abide by procedural rules.
This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of pro se filings containing AI-generated or fabricated citations. It highlights that courts may treat such inaccuracies as evidence of bad faith, regardless of whether the litigant explicitly admits to using AI tools.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated_case_law
- Misrepresented_case_law
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Bankruptcy
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter came before the District Court on the Appellants' joint Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Motion for Rehearing (D.I. 37) following the Court's prior affirmation of Bankruptcy Court orders.
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 referenced the potential role of artificial intelligence in the misrepresentations.
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
- Independently verify the existence and accuracy of every legal citation, regardless of the research method used.
- Ensure that cited authorities directly support the specific legal propositions for which they are invoked.
- Maintain rigorous quality control over filings to avoid the appearance of bad faith or procedural incompetence.
- Review all AI-generated research output for hallucinations before incorporating it into court submissions.