Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Nima Ghadimi v. Arizona Bank & Trust, et al.
D. Arizona · Oct 15, 2025
AZ / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Contreras v. BlueCross Blue Shield of Ariz., No. CV-20-01915-PHX-JAT, 2021 WL 252719, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 26, 2021)'; the court found the case number/Westlaw citation do not return the identified case and treated it as a likely fabricated citation. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Arizona, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Contreras v. BlueCross Blue Shield of Ariz., No. CV-20-01915-PHX-JAT, 2021 WL 252719, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 26, 2021)'; the court found the case number/Westlaw citation do not return the identified case and treated it as a likely fabricated citation. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Arizona, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Arizona
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateOct 15, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
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
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Contreras v. BlueCross Blue Shield of Ariz., No. CV-20-01915-PHX-JAT, 2021 WL 252719, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 26, 2021)'; the court found the case number/Westlaw citation do not return the identified case and treated it as a likely fabricated citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Williams v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corr., No. CV-19-01834-PHX-GMS, 2020 WL 4016022, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 16, 2020)'; the court found the case number/Westlaw citation do not return the identified case and treated it as a likely fabricated citation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Nima Ghadimi v. Arizona Bank & Trust, et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Contreras v. BlueCross Blue Shield of Ariz., No. CV-20-01915-PHX-JAT, 2021 WL 252719, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 26, 2021)'; the court found the case number/Westlaw citation do not return the identified case and treated it as a likely fabricated citation. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Nima Ghadimi v. Arizona Bank & Trust, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Arizona, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Nima Ghadimi v. Arizona Bank & Trust, et al.?
- 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 Nima Ghadimi v. Arizona Bank & Trust, 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.