Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1XYT15QGenerated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

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

D. Colorado · Feb 6, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
D. Colorado
Record ID
nonnie-berg-v-united-airlines-inc-3-2026-02-06
Observed outcome
The 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 monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Employment
  • Trial
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Explicitly Recorded
Recorded tool
Unidentified
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
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.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

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

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).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
  2. Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.