AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 2, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 1, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesNantongo v. Nationwide Mortgage Bankers Inc.
Allegation status: this record tracks a public allegation or unresolved matter. It must not be described as an adjudicated finding.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Nantongo v. Nationwide Mortgage Bankers Inc.

E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2026

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowmisrepresented authorityemploymenttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | The filing cited “715 F. App’x 84” for Mpala v. Segarra, but the genuine Second Circuit decision is reported at 718 F. App’x 84. The cited reporter location corresponds to Johnson v. Turnbill, an unrelated excessive-force case. The court treated the error as an inadvertent typographical mistake and found the genuine Mpala decision readily locatable. Outcome: Sanctions motion denied. Plaintiff sought sanctions against Attorney Fred Charles for citing “Mpala v. Segarra, 715 F. App’x 84” instead of the genuine “Mpala v. Segarra, 718 F. App’x 84,” and “LinkCo, Inc. v. Naoyuki Akikusa, 357 F. App’x 180” instead of “367 F. App’x 180.” The incorrect reporter numbers corresponded to unrelated cases, Johnson v. Turnbill and United States v. Philley. The court accepted Charles’s explanation that these were inadvertent typographical errors, noted that the genuine cases were readily locatable, and found no evidence of bad faith, deception, or frivolous legal argument. It denied sanctions under the court’s inherent authority, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and Rule 11.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies misrepresented authority and employment and records Sanctions motion denied. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects misrepresented authority and employment with Sanctions motion denied in E.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Misrepresented: Case Law | The filing cited “715 F. App’x 84” for Mpala v. Segarra, but the genuine Second Circuit decision is reported at 718 F. App’x 84. The cited reporter location corresponds to Johnson v. Turnbill, an unrelated excessive-force case. The court treated the error as an inadvertent typographical mistake and found the genuine Mpala decision readily locatable. Outcome: Sanctions motion denied. Plaintiff sought sanctions against Attorney Fred Charles for citing “Mpala v. Segarra, 715 F. App’x 84” instead of the genuine “Mpala v. Segarra, 718 F. App’x 84,” and “LinkCo, Inc. v. Naoyuki Akikusa, 357 F. App’x 180” instead of “367 F. App’x 180.” The incorrect reporter numbers corresponded to unrelated cases, Johnson v. Turnbill and United States v. Philley. The court accepted Charles’s explanation that these were inadvertent typographical errors, noted that the genuine cases were readily locatable, and found no evidence of bad faith, deception, or frivolous legal argument. It denied sanctions under the court’s inherent authority, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and Rule 11.

Operational lesson

This matter connects misrepresented authority and employment with Sanctions motion denied in E.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtE.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateSep 30, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeSanctions motion denied
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Sanctions motion denied

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. Misrepresented: Case Law | The filing cited “715 F. App’x 84” for Mpala v. Segarra, but the genuine Second Circuit decision is reported at 718 F. App’x 84. The cited reporter location corresponds to Johnson v. Turnbill, an unrelated excessive-force case. The court treated the error as an inadvertent typographical mistake and found the genuine Mpala decision readily locatable.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | The filing cited “357 F. App’x 180” for LinkCo, Inc. v. Naoyuki Akikusa, but the genuine Second Circuit decision is reported at 367 F. App’x 180. The cited reporter location corresponds to United States v. Philley, an unrelated Tenth Circuit sentencing case. The court noted that LinkCo was correctly cited in the filing’s table of authorities and treated the error as typographical.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Nantongo v. Nationwide Mortgage Bankers Inc.?
Misrepresented: Case Law | The filing cited “715 F. App’x 84” for Mpala v. Segarra, but the genuine Second Circuit decision is reported at 718 F. App’x 84. The cited reporter location corresponds to Johnson v. Turnbill, an unrelated excessive-force case. The court treated the error as an inadvertent typographical mistake and found the genuine Mpala decision readily locatable. Outcome: Sanctions motion denied. Plaintiff sought sanctions against Attorney Fred Charles for citing “Mpala v. Segarra, 715 F. App’x 84” instead of the genuine “Mpala v. Segarra, 718 F. App’x 84,” and “LinkCo, Inc. v. Naoyuki Akikusa, 357 F. App’x 180” instead of “367 F. App’x 180.” The incorrect reporter numbers corresponded to unrelated cases, Johnson v. Turnbill and United States v. Philley. The court accepted Charles’s explanation that these were inadvertent typographical errors, noted that the genuine cases were readily locatable, and found no evidence of bad faith, deception, or frivolous legal argument. It denied sanctions under the court’s inherent authority, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and Rule 11.
Why does Nantongo v. Nationwide Mortgage Bankers Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects misrepresented authority and employment with Sanctions motion denied in E.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Nantongo v. Nationwide Mortgage Bankers Inc.?
The record concerns a public allegation and does not establish an adjudicated finding. 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 Nantongo v. Nationwide Mortgage Bankers 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.

Henry v. Long Island UniversityE.D. New York · Sep 14, 2026same court · employment + trialEvgeny Yaroshevsky v. Karlin et al.E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2026same court · misrepresented authority + trialOwens v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.E.D. New York · Jun 4, 2026same court · trialPolanco v. Himalayan Real Estate LLC, et al.E.D. New York · May 27, 2026same court · trialHenri Giovani Morales Jimenez v. Christopher ShanahanE.D. New York · May 13, 2026same court · trialTerrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.E.D. New York · May 6, 2026same court · trial