Which source supports this M.T. Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Servis One, Inc., 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.

HomeCasesM.T. Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Servis One, Inc., 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 86/100. 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

M.T. Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Servis One, Inc., et al.

D. Nevada · Dec 30, 2025

NV / federal Editorial impact: high fake citations bar referral contract trial Monetary Bar Referral

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court sanctioned attorney Bryce Finley for violating FRCP 11(b)(2) by submitting five fabricated legal authorities generated by AI. The court struck the offending filings, ordered the payment of the defendants' reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in addressing the hallucinations, and referred the attorney to the Nevada State Bar Association.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the district court opinion cited; counsel admitted the citation was not real and produced by AI. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the Nevada decision cited; counsel admitted the cited state-court opinion was not real and was AI-generated. || Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Court could not locate the practice guide/treatise cited; counsel admitted the reference was not real and generated by AI. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the opinion cited; counsel later admitted the cited decision was not real and was AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the Ninth Circuit opinion cited; counsel admitted the citation was not real and produced by AI.
Why it matters now: Bar referral follows multiple fabricated cites in one brief; require Westlaw/Lexis pinpoint verification log for every AI-assisted filing.

Why this matter is tracked

In M.T. Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Servis One, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada sanctioned attorney Bryce Finley for submitting filings containing five fabricated legal authorities. The attorney admitted the citations were generated by artificial intelligence used by his paralegal and that he failed to verify their authenticity. Finding a violation of FRCP 11(b)(2), the court struck the offending responses, ordered the attorney to pay the defendants' reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with researching and responding to the hallucinated citations, and directed the Clerk of Court to refer the attorney to the Nevada State Bar Association. The court emphasized that the duty of reasonable inquiry under Rule 11 cannot be delegated to subordinates.

Operational lesson

Bar referral follows multiple fabricated cites in one brief; require Westlaw/Lexis pinpoint verification log for every AI-assisted filing.

Record details

NevadaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtD. Nevada

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateDec 30, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeThe court struck the offending filings, ordered the attorney to pay the defendants' reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and referred the attorney to the Nevada State Bar Association.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionReferral to the Nevada State Bar Association.

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The attorney admitted the citations were the product of artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

The court issued an order imposing sanctions following a show-cause proceeding regarding the submission of non-existent legal authorities in response to motions to dismiss and strike.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the district court opinion cited; counsel admitted the citation was not real and produced by AI.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the Nevada decision cited; counsel admitted the cited state-court opinion was not real and was AI-generated.
Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Court could not locate the practice guide/treatise cited; counsel admitted the reference was not real and generated by AI.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the opinion cited; counsel later admitted the cited decision was not real and was AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the Ninth Circuit opinion cited; counsel admitted the citation was not real and produced by AI.

Questions this record answers

What happened in M.T. Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Servis One, Inc., et al.?: The court sanctioned attorney Bryce Finley for violating FRCP 11(b)(2) by submitting five fabricated legal authorities generated by AI. The court struck the offending filings, ordered the payment of the defendants' reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in addressing the hallucinations, and referred the attorney to the Nevada State Bar Association.
Why does M.T. Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Servis One, Inc., et al. matter for legal AI risk?: Bar referral follows multiple fabricated cites in one brief; require Westlaw/Lexis pinpoint verification log for every AI-assisted filing.
What does the public record establish about M.T. Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Servis One, Inc., 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 M.T. Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Servis One, Inc., 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.

Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al.D. Nevada · Jul 13, 2026same court · fake citations + contract Angela Williams, et al. v. Jamal Rashid, et al.D. Nevada · Jun 9, 2025same court · fake citations + contract Wendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual TilleryD. Nevada · Apr 6, 2026same court · fake citations + contract Anthony Wallace v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 26, 2026same court · fake citations + contract Thu Thuy Nguyen v. PennyMac Loan ServicesD. Nevada · Jan 7, 2026same court · fake citations + contract Nicole Beverly Silverberg v. Steven Bonomo, et al.D. Nevada · Dec 30, 2025same court · fake citations + contract

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. Nevada 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