AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesPerry v. Exeter Finance LLC
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

Perry v. Exeter Finance LLC

D. Arizona · Feb 26, 2026

AZ / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescontractWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a warning to a pro se litigant after observing that her filings contained fabricated case law citations and misattributed quotations, likely generated by artificial intelligence. The court explicitly stated that future filings containing fictitious cases would subject the litigant to sanctions under Rule 11.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed the citation 'Chavez v. Bank of Am., 2014 WL 2159382 (D. Ariz. 2014)' provided by Plaintiff does not return the case identified. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court noted Plaintiff misattributes an apparently fabricated quotation to a real case, citing 'Matterhorn, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 763 F.2d 866, 868 (7th Cir. 1985)'. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed the citation 'Anderson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002)' provided by Plaintiff does not return the case identified.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Arizona, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a contract dispute, the District Court for the District of Arizona granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. During the proceedings, the court identified that the pro se plaintiff submitted filings containing fabricated case law citations and misattributed quotations. The court noted that these errors likely resulted from the use of artificial intelligence. While the court did not impose a formal sanction in this order, it issued a formal warning to the plaintiff, stating that future filings containing fictitious cases would subject the plaintiff to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Arizona, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore AZOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Arizona
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateFeb 26, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court granted the motion to compel arbitration and issued a formal warning regarding the plaintiff's use of fictitious legal authorities.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court noted the plaintiff likely used artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

The court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stayed the litigation pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed the citation 'Chavez v. Bank of Am., 2014 WL 2159382 (D. Ariz. 2014)' provided by Plaintiff does not return the case identified.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Court noted Plaintiff misattributes an apparently fabricated quotation to a real case, citing 'Matterhorn, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 763 F.2d 866, 868 (7th Cir. 1985)'.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed the citation 'Anderson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002)' provided by Plaintiff does not return the case identified.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Perry v. Exeter Finance LLC?
The court issued a warning to a pro se litigant after observing that her filings contained fabricated case law citations and misattributed quotations, likely generated by artificial intelligence. The court explicitly stated that future filings containing fictitious cases would subject the litigant to sanctions under Rule 11.
Why does Perry v. Exeter Finance LLC matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Arizona, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Perry v. Exeter Finance LLC?
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 Perry v. Exeter Finance LLC 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.

Gerow v. FalconeD. Arizona · Feb 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsErik Arthur Otteson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NAD. Arizona · Jul 17, 2026same court · pro se + fabricated quotesOliver Complot and Corina Tolamaa v. Credit Control, LLC and LVNV Funding LLCD. Arizona · Jun 23, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsPerry v. Merrick Bank CorporationD. Arizona · Jun 9, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBathsheba Nichole Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company, et al.D. Arizona · Apr 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsOffen Petroleum v. L&J ExpressD. Arizona · Feb 4, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes