Kendle Mardis v. Dealer Loyalty Protection, Inc., et al.
S.D. Ohio · Feb 18, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. Ohio
- Record ID
- kendle-mardis-v-dealer-loyalty-protection-inc-et-al-2026-02-18
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the plaintiff's motions for default judgment and sanctions, denied the defendants' request for attorneys' fees without prejudice, and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding AI-generated citations and vexatious conduct.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for citing AI-generated, non-existent case law in court filings. The judge directed the plaintiff to cease this behavior, warning that continued use of hallucinated citations or vexatious litigation tactics could result in future court-ordered sanctions.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Johnson v. Mitchell, 2:20-cv-1882, 2020 WL 5649609 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 23, 2020)'; defendants and the Court found the case does not exist and flagged it as likely AI-generated.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Ohio, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Opinion and Order resolving multiple motions, including motions for default judgment, motions to strike, and requests for sanctions, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
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 explicitly identified the citations as likely generated by artificial intelligence.
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.