Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-13V18KAGenerated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Labonte v. Bokf, et al.

D. Colorado · Feb 10, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
D. Colorado
Record ID
labonte-v-bokf-et-al-2026-02-10
Observed outcome
The Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding the submission of inaccurate citations.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Fabricated Quotes
  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Contract
  • Trial
AI attribution
Explicitly Recorded
Recorded tool
generative artificial intelligence
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
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).
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 attributed the errors to the improper use of generative 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).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
  2. Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.