Which source supports this Nonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (3) 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.

HomeCasesNonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (3)

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 81/100. 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

Nonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (3)

D. Colorado · Feb 6, 2026

CO / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations misrepresented authority employment None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court imposed a filing restriction on the pro se plaintiff, Nonnie Berg, requiring her to obtain leave of court for future filings. This sanction was issued due to the plaintiff's persistent failure to follow procedural rules, including the submission of hallucinated case law and misrepresented legal authorities, despite repeated warnings regarding her misuse of generative AI.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's Motion for Extension cited a nonexistent Ninth Circuit case titled 'Kelley v. United States' with a fabricated reporter citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's Motion for Extension cited a nonexistent 10th Circuit opinion 'United States v. Miller' with a fabricated Westlaw cite and date. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Moore v. City of Del City' but misstated the reporter information and attributed an 'excusable neglect' holding that the Moore opinion did not address.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Filing restriction.

Why this matter is tracked

In an employment discrimination case, the District of Colorado imposed a filing restriction on a pro se litigant, Nonnie Berg, following repeated failures to comply with procedural rules and the court's standing orders. The court found that the plaintiff repeatedly submitted filings containing hallucinated case law, including nonexistent citations to the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and misrepresented the holdings of real cases. Despite multiple warnings from the court and the magistrate judge regarding the misuse of generative AI and the necessity of verifying citations, the plaintiff continued to submit noncompliant, untimely, and duplicative motions. The court concluded that these actions hindered the just and efficient resolution of the case, necessitating a restriction on future filings without prior leave of court.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Filing restriction.

Record details

ColoradoSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtD. Colorado

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit10th Circuit

DateFeb 6, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court denied the plaintiff's motions and imposed a filing restriction requiring leave of court for any future filings until the court rules on the pending motion for summary judgment.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The court noted the plaintiff's misuse of generative AI but did not identify a specific tool.

Procedural posture

The court issued a Minute Order denying the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Extension of Time, while simultaneously imposing a filing restriction.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's Motion for Extension cited a nonexistent Ninth Circuit case titled 'Kelley v. United States' with a fabricated reporter citation.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's Motion for Extension cited a nonexistent 10th Circuit opinion 'United States v. Miller' with a fabricated Westlaw cite and date.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Moore v. City of Del City' but misstated the reporter information and attributed an 'excusable neglect' holding that the Moore opinion did not address.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Nonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (3)?: The court imposed a filing restriction on the pro se plaintiff, Nonnie Berg, requiring her to obtain leave of court for future filings. This sanction was issued due to the plaintiff's persistent failure to follow procedural rules, including the submission of hallucinated case law and misrepresented legal authorities, despite repeated warnings regarding her misuse of generative AI.
Why does Nonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (3) matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Filing restriction.
What does the public record establish about Nonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (3)?: 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 Nonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (3) 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.

Jamie Lee Saunders v. Albertsons/Safeway, LLCD. Colorado · Apr 16, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Hanson v. Nest Home Lending, LLC et al.D. Colorado · Nov 28, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Danielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel MaloitD. Colorado · Jul 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Y.S. v. John Doe, et al.D. Colorado · Jun 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Labonte v. Bokf, et al.D. Colorado · Feb 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Y.S. v. John Doe et al.D. Colorado · Nov 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations

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. Colorado 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