Perry v. Merrick Bank Corporation
D. Arizona · Jun 9, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Arizona
- Record ID
- perry-v-merrick-bank-corporation-2026-06-09
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court did not impose sanctions in this specific case. However, it formally noted the plaintiff's prior use of hallucinated citations and fake quotations in a separate litigation (Perry v. Exeter Finance LLC) as evidence of a pattern of conduct justifying the denial of leave to amend the complaint.
The court reasoned that leave to amend should be denied because the plaintiff's complaint was meritless and part of a pattern of vexatious litigation, citing the plaintiff's prior submission of hallucinated citations and fake quotations in Perry v. Exeter Finance LLC as evidence of this pattern.
This case illustrates how courts track and document a litigant's history of submitting AI-hallucinated or fabricated legal authorities across different dockets. It highlights that such conduct, even if not sanctioned in the immediate case, can influence judicial discretion regarding procedural requests like leave to amend.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_citation
- Fabricated_quotations
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Other
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, denying the plaintiff's request for leave to amend.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.