Nima Ghadimi v. Arizona Bank & Trust, et al.
D. Arizona · Oct 15, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Arizona
- Record ID
- nima-ghadimi-v-arizona-bank-trust-et-al-2025-10-15
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, struck an improper filing, and issued a formal warning regarding the use of fabricated citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the inclusion of fabricated case law in his filings. The court noted the citations appeared to be AI-generated and explicitly cautioned that any future submission of fictitious cases would result in sanctions under Rule 11.
The court reasoned that the plaintiff's cited cases did not exist in the identified databases, creating confusion and unnecessary work for the court and opposing parties. It determined that such conduct, whether AI-assisted or manually fabricated, violates the requirement that legal arguments be warranted by existing law under Rule 11(b)(3).
This case highlights the judiciary's increasing scrutiny of AI-generated or fabricated legal research in pro se filings. It serves as a reminder that courts will proactively identify and warn litigants against the submission of non-existent authorities to maintain procedural integrity.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court issued an order denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, striking an improper filing, and providing a formal warning regarding the use of fabricated legal authorities.
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 noted the citations may be the result of artificial intelligence.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.