HomeCasesJordan v. Beskrone (In re Prehired LLC)

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Jordan v. Beskrone (In re Prehired LLC)

D. Delaware (Bankruptcy) · Dec 12, 2025

DE / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritybankruptcy

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint included citations to opinions that do not exist; court identified these fabricated citations (noted in June 9, 2025 letter) and attributed them to likely AI misuse. Outcome: Second Amended Complaint dismissed.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint included citations to opinions that do not exist; court identified these fabricated citations (noted in June 9, 2025 letter) and attributed them to likely AI misuse. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Complaint cited In re Marvel Ent. Grp. as supporting a heightened-duty proposition; court found the case does not support that proposition and flagged the citation as likely AI-generated. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Complaint cited other real opinions that did not plausibly stand for the propositions asserted by plaintiff; court treated these as misrepresentations likely from generative AI.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Delaware (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: Second Amended Complaint dismissed.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Delaware (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: Second Amended Complaint dismissed.

Record details

DelawareSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtD. Delaware (Bankruptcy)

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit3rd Circuit

DateDec 12, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSecond Amended Complaint dismissed

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Second Amended Complaint dismissed

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint included citations to opinions that do not exist; court identified these fabricated citations (noted in June 9, 2025 letter) and attributed them to likely AI misuse.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Complaint cited In re Marvel Ent. Grp. as supporting a heightened-duty proposition; court found the case does not support that proposition and flagged the citation as likely AI-generated.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Complaint cited other real opinions that did not plausibly stand for the propositions asserted by plaintiff; court treated these as misrepresentations likely from generative AI.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Jordan v. Beskrone (In re Prehired LLC)?: Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint included citations to opinions that do not exist; court identified these fabricated citations (noted in June 9, 2025 letter) and attributed them to likely AI misuse. Outcome: Second Amended Complaint dismissed.
Why does Jordan v. Beskrone (In re Prehired LLC) matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Delaware (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: Second Amended Complaint dismissed.
What does the public record establish about Jordan v. Beskrone (In re Prehired LLC)?: 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 Jordan v. Beskrone (In re Prehired LLC) 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.

In re BittrexD. Delaware · Oct 22, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations In re Nicholia Cherry-CrocketteD. New Jersey (Bankruptcy) · May 20, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Jorgensen v JML Rose Pty Ltd (Security for Costs)Federal Court of Australia · Feb 9, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Herzel Hagigi v. Official ReceiverSupreme Court · Dec 28, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Gerou v. George, Whitten, and United StatesE.D. Wisconsin · Dec 18, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)In re: Marguerite Latete KilpatrickS.D. Ohio (Bankruptcy) · Nov 24, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

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

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Delaware (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: Second Amended Complaint dismissed.

Record details

DelawareSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtD. Delaware (Bankruptcy)

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit3rd Circuit

DateDec 12, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSecond Amended Complaint dismissed

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint included citations to opinions that do not exist; court identified these fabricated citations (noted in June 9, 2025 letter) and attributed them to likely AI misuse.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Complaint cited In re Marvel Ent. Grp. as supporting a heightened-duty proposition; court found the case does not support that proposition and flagged the citation as likely AI-generated.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Complaint cited other real opinions that did not plausibly stand for the propositions asserted by plaintiff; court treated these as misrepresentations likely from generative AI.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Jordan v. Beskrone (In re Prehired LLC)?

Why does Jordan v. Beskrone (In re Prehired LLC) matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Delaware (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: Second Amended Complaint dismissed.

What does the public record establish about Jordan v. Beskrone (In re Prehired LLC)?

Which source supports this Jordan v. Beskrone (In re Prehired LLC) 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.