Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-026UGXMGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

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

S.D. Florida · Feb 19, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
S.D. Florida
Record ID
juandel-pena-and-martina-ruiz-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-2026-02-19
Observed outcome
The court recommended denying the plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and issued a warning regarding potential future sanctions for fabricated citations.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Hallucinated_case_law
  • Hallucinated_pinpoint_citation
  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Administrative
  • Trial
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
unspecified
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

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

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.