Kevin L. Swincher et al. v. Fay Servicing, LLC et al.
W.D. Kentucky · Nov 10, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- W.D. Kentucky
- Record ID
- kevin-l-swincher-et-al-v-fay-servicing-llc-et-al-2025-11-10
- Observed outcome
- Motion to Remand denied; formal warning issued regarding the duty of candor and potential sanctions for future use of nonexistent authority.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to pro se plaintiffs for citing nonexistent case law and misrepresenting legal authorities in their motion to remand. The court noted the plaintiffs' use of 'online attorney' assistance and cautioned that continued reliance on fabricated or misrepresented authority could lead to the imposition of sanctions.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a case the Court was unable to locate and deemed nonexistent. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs relied on Roche for the proposition that removal was used to obstruct discovery, but the Court found the case does not stand for that proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs relied on Little for the obstruction proposition, but the Court found the case does not support their explanatory parenthetical.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Kentucky, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Misrepresented Case Law
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.
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 noted the plaintiffs' claim that filings were prepared by an 'online attorney' and referenced the risks of AI ghostwriting.
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.