AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
Search free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Nov 8, 2026 · Latest decision Nov 3, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMoffett v. Ally Capital Corporation
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Moffett v. Ally Capital Corporation

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

Cite this record

D. Arizona · Sep 21, 2026

AZ / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontractWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that the cited case did not exist and warned that reliance on nonexistent authority may violate Rule 11. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in D. Arizona. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that the cited case did not exist and warned that reliance on nonexistent authority may violate Rule 11. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in D. Arizona. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore AZOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Arizona
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateSep 21, 2026
First seenSep 24, 2026 (in this dataset)
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that the cited case did not exist and warned that reliance on nonexistent authority may violate Rule 11.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | The court stated that several other cases cited in the plaintiff's filings were either nonexistent or cited for propositions they did not represent, referring to errors summarized in Doc. 34.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Moffett v. Ally Capital Corporation?
Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that the cited case did not exist and warned that reliance on nonexistent authority may violate Rule 11. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Moffett v. Ally Capital Corporation matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in D. Arizona. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Moffett v. Ally Capital Corporation?
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Moffett v. Ally Capital Corporation 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.

Transamerica Life v. WilliamsD. Arizona · Sep 6, 2024same court · pro se + fake citationsGustafson v. Amazon.comD. Arizona · Apr 30, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsGerow v. FalconeD. Arizona · Feb 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsOffen Petroleum v. L&J ExpressD. Arizona · Feb 4, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityBathsheba Nichole Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company, et al.D. Arizona · Apr 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsKevin D. Turnage v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., et al.D. Arizona · Apr 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

This record mentions Rule 11. See Rule 11 sanctions for AI-generated citations for the rule text and counts across the corpus.

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.