Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0LN4P19Generated September 24, 2026Evidence checked Sep 24, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Pennmark Coventry Holdings, LLC v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc.

E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
E.D. Pennsylvania
Record ID
pennmark-coventry-holdings-llc-v-kohl-s-department-stores-inc-2026-09-09
Observed outcome
None Adjudicated
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed to Kannankeril the proposition that the classic Daubert factors are not applicable to experience-based testimony. The Court found no such quoted language and explained that Kannankeril instead held that the factors are non-exhaustive and may not apply in every case, while still requiring analysis of reliability, sources, and methods.

Why the decision-maker cared

The structured public record identifies fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.

Why it matters now

This matter connects fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority with a recorded judicial or procedural response in E.D. Pennsylvania. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Fabricated Quotes
  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Contract
  • Trial
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Reported
Recorded tool
AI (implied, unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

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.

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
  2. Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
  3. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.