AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesJuandel Pena and Martina Ruiz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Juandel Pena and Martina Ruiz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

S.D. Florida · Feb 19, 2026

FL / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified a fabricated legal citation in the plaintiffs' briefing, which it attributed to potential AI use. The court recommended denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and issued a formal warning that future use of AI-hallucinated citations could lead to sanctions.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Inc., 98 F.4th 1359 with a pinpoint to page 1371; the court noted Holden ends at page 1369 and that the cited page does not exist, suggesting an AI-generated or otherwise fabricated citation.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Florida, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In a report and recommendation regarding a motion for preliminary injunction, the U.S. Magistrate Judge addressed the plaintiffs' reliance on a fabricated legal citation. The plaintiffs cited Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Inc., 98 F.4th 1359, 1371 (11th Cir. 2024), to argue that private litigants may seek injunctive relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court noted that the cited opinion ends on page 1369 and does not address injunctive relief. The court characterized the citation as likely AI-generated or otherwise fabricated, noting a prior admonishment to the plaintiffs regarding potential AI-hallucinated citations. The court recommended denying the motion for injunctive relief and warned the plaintiffs that future inclusion of false citations may result in sanctions.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Florida, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

FloridaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore FLOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtS.D. Florida
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit11th Circuit
DateFeb 19, 2026
UN
AI toolunspecified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court recommended denying the plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and issued a warning regarding potential future sanctions for fabricated citations.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court explicitly referenced the possibility of AI-generated citations.

Procedural posture

Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Inc., 98 F.4th 1359 with a pinpoint to page 1371; the court noted Holden ends at page 1369 and that the cited page does not exist, suggesting an AI-generated or otherwise fabricated citation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Juandel Pena and Martina Ruiz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.?
The court identified a fabricated legal citation in the plaintiffs' briefing, which it attributed to potential AI use. The court recommended denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and issued a formal warning that future use of AI-hallucinated citations could lead to sanctions.
Why does Juandel Pena and Martina Ruiz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Florida, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Juandel Pena and Martina Ruiz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.?
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 Juandel Pena and Martina Ruiz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 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.

Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Sigrid McCawleyS.D. Florida · Feb 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsRalph J. Massetti, Jr. v. Greenspring Capital Management, LLC, et al.S.D. Florida · Jan 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsAyatollah Hylton v. Chivone Janee Hylton, et al.S.D. Florida · Jan 5, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsNunez v. American Airlines, Inc.S.D. Florida · Jul 24, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsCrespo v. Tesla, Inc.S.D. Florida · Jun 30, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsO’Brien v. Flick and ChamberlainS.D. Florida · Jan 10, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations