Kamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance Corporation
S.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. Indiana
- Record ID
- kamia-nellum-v-credit-acceptance-corporation-2025-11-18
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding the submission of hallucinated citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff for submitting hallucinated and misrepresented case law citations in her filings. The court clarified that pro se litigants are not exempt from procedural rules and cautioned that continued submission of fabricated authority could lead to sanctions.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Messina v. N. Cent. Distrib., Inc., 821 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)'; court found the citation/method of attribution incorrect and that the proper decision appears as Messina v. N. Cent. Distrib., Inc., 821 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir. 2016). Court noted the case was not addressed by the Indiana Court of Appeals as plaintiff claimed. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Miller v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 2019 WL 2450930 (S.D. Ind. 2019)'; court found that citation does not exist (2019 WL 2450930 corresponds to an unrelated D. Utah decision) and that the Miller v. Credit Acceptance decisions found on Westlaw are from 2012 (N.D. Ohio).
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Indiana, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration, while simultaneously issuing a warning regarding the plaintiff's citation practices.
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 source does not name a tool, but the nature of the errors implies automated generation.
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).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.