AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMcNeal v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555; Safeway, Inc.
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

McNeal v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555; Safeway, Inc.

D. Oregon · Jan 22, 2026

OR / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsemploymenttrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the citation of a fabricated case, noting it was likely generated by AI. The court reminded the plaintiff of the obligation under Rule 11 to verify the existence and validity of all legal authorities cited in court filings.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent appellate decision 'Frey v. [ODOC], 204 P.3d 135 (Or. Ct. App. 2009)'; opposing counsel flagged the citation and the court explicitly warned the plaintiff that the opinion appears fabricated and may have been generated by AI.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Oregon, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In an employment discrimination action, the pro se plaintiff, James McNeal, cited a non-existent appellate decision, 'Frey v. [ODOC], 204 P.3d 135 (Or. Ct. App. 2009),' in his response to a motion to dismiss. Opposing counsel identified the citation as fabricated. The court, in its Opinion and Order, explicitly warned the plaintiff that the opinion appears to be a hallucination generated by an artificial intelligence tool. The court emphasized that Rule 11 duties require self-represented parties to verify the existence and validity of all legal authorities relied upon in their filings, noting that reliance on fake opinions constitutes an abuse of the adversary system.

Operational lesson

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

Record details

OregonSingle-state evidence scope
Explore OROpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Oregon
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJan 22, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the use of fabricated legal authority.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court noted the citation may have been created by a generative AI tool.

Procedural posture

Opinion and Order on Defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent appellate decision 'Frey v. [ODOC], 204 P.3d 135 (Or. Ct. App. 2009)'; opposing counsel flagged the citation and the court explicitly warned the plaintiff that the opinion appears fabricated and may have been generated by AI.

Questions this record answers

What happened in McNeal v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555; Safeway, Inc.?
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the citation of a fabricated case, noting it was likely generated by AI. The court reminded the plaintiff of the obligation under Rule 11 to verify the existence and validity of all legal authorities cited in court filings.
Why does McNeal v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555; Safeway, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Oregon, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about McNeal v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555; Safeway, Inc.?
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 McNeal v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555; Safeway, Inc. 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.

Owen v. Askew et al.D. Oregon · Jul 28, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMichael J. Cross v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al.D. Oregon · Jun 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsSteven Nemec v. Kelsey Kanoelani Alao and Alyssa Jade AlaoD. Oregon · Apr 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsYves Hector Vimegnon v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsStafford v. Andrew Taffet, et al.D. Oregon · Mar 23, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsZack Jones v. Target CorporationD. Oregon · Mar 6, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations