Merz v. City of Kalama
W.D. Washington · Feb 13, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- W.D. Washington
- Record ID
- merz-v-city-of-kalama-2026-02-13
- Observed outcome
- None Adjudicated
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Misrepresented: Case Law | Merz relied on Caruso v. Local Union 690, 107 Wn.2d 524, 529-30 (1987) to support a 'per se' defamation assertion; court found the citation misleading because the cited pages do not contain the 'per se' language Merz attributed to it. Merz corrected the Sorensen citation, saying he intended to cite Norg v. City of Seattle, 200 Wn.2d 749 (2023). The court declined to dismiss based solely on the inaccurate citation, noted the replacement authority was not closely analogous, and proceeded to dismiss the claims on the merits.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Merz relied on Caruso v. Local Union 690, 107 Wn.2d 524, 529-30 (1987) to support a 'per se' defamation assertion; court found the citation misleading because the cited pages do not contain the 'per se' language Merz attributed to it. || Fabricated: Case Law | Merz cited 'Sorensen v. City of Bellingham, 15 Wn. App. 2d 730, 733, 478 P.3d 1110 (2020)' which was inaccurate/fabricated; Merz later admitted he intended to cite Norg v. City of Seattle, 200 Wn.2d 749 (2023); court noted the inaccuracy but declined to dismiss on that basis.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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 Limited (medium 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.