Nicole Beverly Silverberg v. Steven Bonomo, et al.
D. Nevada · Dec 30, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Nevada
- Record ID
- nicole-beverly-silverberg-v-steven-bonomo-et-al-2025-12-30
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the motion to quash service as to one defendant and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding the use of fabricated citations and AI-generated content.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the submission of fabricated case law and misrepresented citations. The court explicitly noted that these errors might stem from the misuse of artificial intelligence and cautioned that future occurrences would result in sanctions, potentially including case-terminating penalties.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the proposition that a defaulted corporation 'lacks standing to defend or prosecute actions until reinstated' to Executive Management Ltd. v. Ticor Title Insurance Co.; the court found no such quote or related holding in that opinion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Chi v. Nevada Employment Security Division, 2020 WL 708272 (D. Nev. Feb. 12, 2020)'; the court found no case by that title and that the Westlaw citation corresponded to a West Virginia legislative bill.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Fabricated_citations
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Contract
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court ruled on a Motion to Quash Service filed by defendants, granting the motion in part and denying it in part, while simultaneously issuing a warning regarding the plaintiff's use of AI-generated citations.
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
The court referenced the plaintiff's potential misuse of Artificial Intelligence.
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 Verified (high 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.