In re Bryant
M.D. North Carolina (Bankruptcy) · Nov 18, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- M.D. North Carolina (Bankruptcy)
- Record ID
- in-re-bryant-2025-11-18
- Observed outcome
- The court issued an order directing the debtors to appear at a show cause hearing on November 25, 2025.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a show cause order requiring pro se debtors to explain why they should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011 for submitting filings that contained fabricated case law and misrepresented legal authorities, which the court attributed to the use of generative artificial intelligence.
Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited a non-existent case 'Harrison v. Hinson, 338, 352 S.E.2d 836 (1987)'; Court noted no such citation exists and that the likely intended case (Harris v. Hinson) is inapposite to Debtors' proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited 'In re Weiman, 22 F.3d 135 (7th Cir. 1994)', but the case and caption are incorrect (the cited opinion corresponds to Kirk v. Fed. Prop. Mgmt. Corp.); Court found the citation does not support Debtors' proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors relied on 'In re Schmid, No. 10-12142, 2013 WL 4835463 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. Sept. 5, 2013)', which the Court found is not an authentic Westlaw citation as presented and whose orders do not support Debtors' asserted proposition. || False Quotes: Case Law | Debtors attributed a quotation to In re Symington, 209 B.R. 678, 689 (Bankr. D. Md. 1997) that does not appear in that opinion; Court identified the misquote. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Debtors cited 'Pulley v. Pulley, 254 N.C. 714 (1961)' — citation is inaccurate though the underlying case exists and the Court corrected the proper citation and discussed its limited relevance.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. North Carolina (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: Show Cause Order.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Misrepresented Case Law
- False Quotations
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court issued an order directing the debtors to appear and show cause why they should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with Rule 9011.
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 the filings appeared to utilize generative artificial intelligence.
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.