Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-01WQLBAGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Perry v. Exeter Finance LLC

D. Arizona · Feb 26, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
D. Arizona
Record ID
perry-v-exeter-finance-llc-2026-02-26
Observed outcome
The court granted the motion to compel arbitration and issued a formal warning regarding the plaintiff's use of fictitious legal authorities.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Hallucinated_case_law
  • Fabricated_quotations
  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Fabricated Quotes
  • Contract
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
AI (unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
The court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stayed the litigation pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.
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 likely used artificial intelligence.

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.