Which source supports this Labonte v. Bokf, et al. 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.

HomeCasesLabonte v. Bokf, et al.

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 85/100. 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

Labonte v. Bokf, et al.

D. Colorado · Feb 10, 2026

CO / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations fabricated quotes misrepresented authority Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the submission of inaccurate citations and fabricated quotes, which the Court attributed to the improper use of generative AI. The Court declined to impose monetary or professional sanctions, opting instead to condemn the conduct in its written order while dismissing the plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. as '855 P.2d 1188' and as a Colorado court decision; the Court noted the correct reporter and that Sterling is 855 F.2d 1188 (Sixth Circuit), not a Colorado decision. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation warning against dismissals that would 'strip a court of its ability to afford complete relief' to Citizen Center v. Gessler; the Court found that language does not appear in Gessler. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Harris v. Sand Canyon Corp. using an apparently fabricated or incorrect Westlaw-style citation that does not match the case or proposition relied upon.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a foreclosure-related action, the pro se plaintiff submitted filings containing multiple inaccurate citations and mischaracterized legal authorities, which the Court attributed to the improper use of generative AI. Specifically, the plaintiff misidentified the reporter and jurisdiction of Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., fabricated a quotation attributed to Citizen Center v. Gessler, and provided an incorrect Westlaw-style citation for Harris v. Sand Canyon Corp. While the Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the underlying claims as time-barred or insufficiently pled, it declined to impose formal disciplinary sanctions for the AI-related errors. However, the Court issued a strong condemnation of the conduct, noting that such inaccuracies undermine the reliability of filings and diminish the litigant's credibility.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

ColoradoSingle-state evidence scope

Explore COOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtD. Colorado

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit10th Circuit

DateFeb 10, 2026

AI toolgenerative artificial intelligence

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding the submission of inaccurate citations.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The Court attributed the errors to the improper use of generative artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

The matter was before the Court on defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. as '855 P.2d 1188' and as a Colorado court decision; the Court noted the correct reporter and that Sterling is 855 F.2d 1188 (Sixth Circuit), not a Colorado decision.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation warning against dismissals that would 'strip a court of its ability to afford complete relief' to Citizen Center v. Gessler; the Court found that language does not appear in Gessler.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Harris v. Sand Canyon Corp. using an apparently fabricated or incorrect Westlaw-style citation that does not match the case or proposition relied upon.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Labonte v. Bokf, et al.?: The Court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the submission of inaccurate citations and fabricated quotes, which the Court attributed to the improper use of generative AI. The Court declined to impose monetary or professional sanctions, opting instead to condemn the conduct in its written order while dismissing the plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds.
Why does Labonte v. Bokf, et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Labonte v. Bokf, et al.?: 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 Labonte v. Bokf, et al. 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.

Hanson v. Nest Home Lending, LLC et al.D. Colorado · Nov 28, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Danielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel MaloitD. Colorado · Jul 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Y.S. v. John Doe et al.D. Colorado · Nov 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Harris v. Take-Two Interactive SoftwareD. Colorado · May 6, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Y.S. v. John Doe, et al.D. Colorado · Jun 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Nonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (2)D. Colorado · Jan 28, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open D. Colorado profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology