Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground
W.D. Washington · Jul 2, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- W.D. Washington
- Record ID
- jordan-slach-v-city-of-battle-ground-2026-07-02
- Observed outcome
- The Court dismissed the plaintiff's FCRA claim and issued a formal warning regarding the use of fabricated legal citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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 identified the citations as hallucinated, implying the use of AI tools.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all case law citations, regardless of the research source.
- Conduct independent verification of all legal authorities cited in opposing counsel's or pro se filings.
- Establish internal review procedures to ensure that AI-assisted research outputs are cross-referenced against primary legal databases.