Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground
W.D. Washington · Jul 2, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff for citing non-existent, hallucinated case law in his Second Amended Complaint. The Court explicitly cautioned that such conduct may be viewed as an attempt to mislead the tribunal and could lead to future sanctions, including the dismissal of all claims.
- Why the court cared
- The Court reasoned that the cited decisions (Rodriguez v. Equifax Info. Servs. and Henderson v. CoreLogic Nat’l Background Data) do not exist, and that presenting such fabricated authorities to the Court constitutes an attempt to mislead the tribunal.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates the judiciary's direct response to the submission of hallucinated legal authorities by pro se litigants. It serves as a reminder that courts are actively monitoring filings for AI-generated fabrications and are prepared to issue formal warnings and threaten case-dispositive sanctions to maintain the integrity of the record.
Why this matter is tracked
In a civil rights action, the pro se plaintiff asserted claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regarding the use of a TLOxp report. To support his argument that the TLOxp report constituted a consumer report under the FCRA, the plaintiff cited two decisions: Rodriguez v. Equifax Info. Servs. and Henderson v. CoreLogic Nat’l Background Data. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington determined that these citations do not exist. Consequently, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's FCRA claim and issued a formal warning, cautioning the plaintiff that providing hallucinated cases may be considered an attempt to mislead the Court and could result in further sanctions, including the potential dismissal of all remaining claims.
This case illustrates the judiciary's direct response to the submission of hallucinated legal authorities by pro se litigants. It serves as a reminder that courts are actively monitoring filings for AI-generated fabrications and are prepared to issue formal warnings and threaten case-dispositive sanctions to maintain the integrity of the record.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The Court identified the citations as hallucinated, implying the use of AI tools.
The Court issued this warning in an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings regarding the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a non-existent decision labeled Rodriguez v. Equifax Info. Servs. to support that a TLOxp report is a consumer report under the FCRA; the Court found this citation does not exist and warned about providing hallucinated cases.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a non-existent decision labeled Henderson v. CoreLogic Nat’l Background Data for the same FCRA theory; the Court found this citation does not exist and warned about providing hallucinated cases.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground?
- The Court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff for citing non-existent, hallucinated case law in his Second Amended Complaint. The Court explicitly cautioned that such conduct may be viewed as an attempt to mislead the tribunal and could lead to future sanctions, including the dismissal of all claims.
- Why does Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates the judiciary's direct response to the submission of hallucinated legal authorities by pro se litigants. It serves as a reminder that courts are actively monitoring filings for AI-generated fabrications and are prepared to issue formal warnings and threaten case-dispositive sanctions to maintain the integrity of the record.
- What does the public record establish about Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground 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.