Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1V5X5PDGenerated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

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

C.D. California · Jul 2, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
C.D. California
Record ID
pedro-paulo-mansur-pagano-sampaio-v-wells-fargo-bank-n-a-et-al-2026-07-02
Observed outcome
The 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 monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Other
  • Trial
  • Ordered To Show Cause
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
generative artificial intelligence
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Order to Show Cause issued by the court in chambers on July 2, 2026.
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 ordered the plaintiff to address whether generative artificial intelligence was used.

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Check the cited authority, reporter reference, and pinpoint against the primary source before filing.
  2. Correct any unsupported citation promptly and preserve the verification record.
  3. Treat the listed consequence as case-specific rather than as a general rule about AI use.