HomeCasesIn re: Nupeutics Natural, Inc.; Gladstone v. Peatross

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

In re: Nupeutics Natural, Inc.; Gladstone v. Peatross

S.D. California · Dec 5, 2025

CA / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationsmisrepresented authoritybar referralbankruptcy

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Motion paraphrased Rule 9006(b)(1) inaccurately regarding the court's authority to extend time for excusable neglect; Court noted the wording differed from the actual rule. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; CLE; Bar referral.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Motion paraphrased Rule 9006(b)(1) inaccurately regarding the court's authority to extend time for excusable neglect; Court noted the wording differed from the actual rule. || Fabricated: Case Law | AI generated a nonexistent case cited in the motion; Court could not locate any authority and counsel admitted AI produced it. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited In re Caneva for a Pioneer/ excusable-neglect proposition; Court found Caneva does not discuss Pioneer and the citation was misapplied. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-2 was cited as supporting a substantive 'technical failures' rule, but the Rule actually concerns amendments by General Order; Court found the characterization incorrect.
Why it matters now: Even a sub-$1K fine is career-material when it carries a bar referral and mandatory CLE; track professional consequences, not dollars.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Even a sub-$1K fine is career-material when it carries a bar referral and mandatory CLE; track professional consequences, not dollars.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtS.D. California

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateDec 5, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary Sanction; CLE; Bar referral

Known amount$950

Professional sanctionYes

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Monetary Sanction; CLE; Bar referral

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Motion paraphrased Rule 9006(b)(1) inaccurately regarding the court's authority to extend time for excusable neglect; Court noted the wording differed from the actual rule.
Fabricated: Case Law | AI generated a nonexistent case cited in the motion; Court could not locate any authority and counsel admitted AI produced it.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited In re Caneva for a Pioneer/ excusable-neglect proposition; Court found Caneva does not discuss Pioneer and the citation was misapplied.
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-2 was cited as supporting a substantive 'technical failures' rule, but the Rule actually concerns amendments by General Order; Court found the characterization incorrect.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re: Nupeutics Natural, Inc.; Gladstone v. Peatross?: Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Motion paraphrased Rule 9006(b)(1) inaccurately regarding the court's authority to extend time for excusable neglect; Court noted the wording differed from the actual rule. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; CLE; Bar referral.
Why does In re: Nupeutics Natural, Inc.; Gladstone v. Peatross matter for legal AI risk?: Even a sub-$1K fine is career-material when it carries a bar referral and mandatory CLE; track professional consequences, not dollars.
What does the public record establish about In re: Nupeutics Natural, Inc.; Gladstone v. Peatross?: 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 In re: Nupeutics Natural, Inc.; Gladstone v. Peatross 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.

Flowz Digital v. Caroline DalalC.D. California · May 5, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority Patterson v. Nuvision Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jul 2, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, Inc.C.D. California · Apr 17, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority Joan Pablo Torres Campos v. Leslie Ann MunozCA California · Mar 5, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction LitigationN.D. California · Feb 17, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority Yi-Sheng Fang, et al. v. Hechalou US LLC, et al.C.D. California · Sep 12, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Even a sub-$1K fine is career-material when it carries a bar referral and mandatory CLE; track professional consequences, not dollars.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtS.D. California

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateDec 5, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary Sanction; CLE; Bar referral

Known amount$950

Professional sanctionYes

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | AI generated a nonexistent case cited in the motion; Court could not locate any authority and counsel admitted AI produced it.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited In re Caneva for a Pioneer/ excusable-neglect proposition; Court found Caneva does not discuss Pioneer and the citation was misapplied.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-2 was cited as supporting a substantive 'technical failures' rule, but the Rule actually concerns amendments by General Order; Court found the characterization incorrect.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re: Nupeutics Natural, Inc.; Gladstone v. Peatross?

Why does In re: Nupeutics Natural, Inc.; Gladstone v. Peatross matter for legal AI risk?

Even a sub-$1K fine is career-material when it carries a bar referral and mandatory CLE; track professional consequences, not dollars.

What does the public record establish about In re: Nupeutics Natural, Inc.; Gladstone v. Peatross?

Which source supports this In re: Nupeutics Natural, Inc.; Gladstone v. Peatross 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.