AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 9, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 6, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesPedro Paulo Mansur Pagano Sampaio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.
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

Pedro Paulo Mansur Pagano Sampaio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

C.D. California · Jul 2, 2026

CA / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityotherOrdered To Show Cause
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring the pro se plaintiff to explain why sanctions should not be imposed following the withdrawal of multiple citations that were either non-existent or misrepresented. The court specifically ordered the plaintiff to disclose whether generative AI was used in drafting the filings.

Why the court cared
The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Plaintiff withdrew several cited authorities that the Notice of Errata states do not exist..
Why it matters now
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a federal proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Why this matter is tracked

In Pedro Paulo Mansur Pagano Sampaio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., the C.D. California addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that plaintiff withdrew several cited authorities that the Notice of Errata states do not exist. The recorded procedural consequence is Order to Show Cause. The entry is dated 2026-07-02. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding.

Operational lesson

The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a federal proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtC.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJul 2, 2026
GE
AI toolgenerative artificial intelligence
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring the plaintiff to justify why sanctions of $1,000 should not be imposed and why the case should not be dismissed.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court ordered the plaintiff to address whether generative artificial intelligence was used.

Procedural posture

Order to Show Cause issued by the court in chambers on July 2, 2026.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff withdrew several cited authorities that the Notice of Errata states do not exist.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff withdrew several existing authorities that, according to the Notice of Errata, do not support the propositions for which they were cited.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Pedro Paulo Mansur Pagano Sampaio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.?
The court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring the pro se plaintiff to explain why sanctions should not be imposed following the withdrawal of multiple citations that were either non-existent or misrepresented. The court specifically ordered the plaintiff to disclose whether generative AI was used in drafting the filings.
Why does Pedro Paulo Mansur Pagano Sampaio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al. matter for legal AI risk?
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a federal proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
What does the public record establish about Pedro Paulo Mansur Pagano Sampaio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.?
Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
Which source supports this Pedro Paulo Mansur Pagano Sampaio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 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.

Novitzky v. Transunion LLCC.D. California · Apr 11, 2024same court · pro se + fake citationsAli Jabbari v. Parviz Omidvar, et al.C.D. California · Aug 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsLagac v. Capital One, N.A.C.D. California · May 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsOscar Danilo Montealto Garcia v. Todd Lyons, et al.C.D. California · May 14, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsSong Dow Lee, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, et al.C.D. California · May 7, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityJames Jordan v. USA, Clinicas Del Camino Real, Inc., et al.C.D. California · Apr 6, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations