In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette
D. New Jersey (Bankruptcy) · May 20, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. New Jersey (Bankruptcy)
- Record ID
- in-re-nicholia-cherry-crockette-2026-05-20
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the debtor's motion for sanctions.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court denied the debtor's motion for sanctions, finding no violation of the automatic stay. In its opinion, the court explicitly identified that the debtor relied on at least one phantom case likely generated by AI and another inaccurate citation, noting that these authorities failed to support the debtor's legal arguments.
The court reasoned that the debtor's cited authorities were either non-existent (phantom cases) or inaccurate, and that the creditor's notice was a mandatory regulatory communication rather than a coercive act violating the automatic stay.
This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools to generate legal research, resulting in the submission of phantom and inaccurate citations that undermine the credibility of the party's arguments and waste judicial resources.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_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 court issued an opinion denying the pro se debtor's motion for sanctions against a creditor for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay.
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 concluded the debtor's citation was likely a phantom case generated by AI.
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
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.