HomeCasesPreston House v. TH Foods, Inc.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Preston House v. TH Foods, Inc.

D. Nevada · Jun 18, 2026

NV / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesemployment

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a case the court identified as apparently hallucinated; the court noted Scherer v. UTI Worldwide, Inc., 2017 WL 2806896 (D. Nev. 2017) appears fabricated. Outcome: Briefs struck; Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Briefs struck; Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Briefs struck; Warning in D. Nevada, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Briefs struck; Warning in D. Nevada, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

NevadaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. Nevada

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJun 18, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeBriefs struck; Warning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

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

Procedural posture

Briefs struck; Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

9 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a case the court identified as apparently hallucinated; the court noted Scherer v. UTI Worldwide, Inc., 2017 WL 2806896 (D. Nev. 2017) appears fabricated.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed specific Rule 35-related quotations to Schlagenhauf; the court found the quoted passages are not in that decision.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a case the court identified as apparently hallucinated; the court noted EEOC v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 2006 WL 3293362 (N.D. Cal. 2006) appears fabricated.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted a passage and attributed it to Henry v. Gill Inds., Inc.; the court found the quoted language does not appear in that opinion.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted a passage and attributed it to Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.; the court found the quoted language does not appear in that opinion.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the line "At some point, litigation must come to an end" to Cornwell; the court found the quotation does not appear in that case.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a limiting-discovery quotation to Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc.; the court found the quoted language is not in Rivera.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a broad authority-to-limit-discovery quotation to Hallett v. Morgan; the court found the quotation does not appear in that opinion.

Show 1 additional discrepancies

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Gattegno for a proposition about Rule 37(b) that the court found the case does not stand for or discuss.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Preston House v. TH Foods, Inc.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a case the court identified as apparently hallucinated; the court noted Scherer v. UTI Worldwide, Inc., 2017 WL 2806896 (D. Nev. 2017) appears fabricated. Outcome: Briefs struck; Warning.
Why does Preston House v. TH Foods, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Briefs struck; Warning in D. Nevada, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Preston House v. TH Foods, Inc.?: 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.
Which source supports this Preston House v. TH Foods, Inc. 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.

James Fahey v. Wally’s Las Vegas, LLC, et al.D. Nevada · Dec 10, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Seeto v. KendallD. Nevada · May 5, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Edward C. Allen v. Western Governors University, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Anthony Wallace v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations James Fahey v. Wally’s Las Vegas, LLC, et al.D. Nevada · Jan 15, 2026same court · pro se + fabricated quotes Nicole Beverly Silverberg v. Steven Bonomo, et al.D. Nevada · Dec 30, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

NevadaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. Nevada

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJun 18, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeBriefs struck; Warning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

9 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a case the court identified as apparently hallucinated; the court noted Scherer v. UTI Worldwide, Inc., 2017 WL 2806896 (D. Nev. 2017) appears fabricated.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed specific Rule 35-related quotations to Schlagenhauf; the court found the quoted passages are not in that decision.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a case the court identified as apparently hallucinated; the court noted EEOC v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 2006 WL 3293362 (N.D. Cal. 2006) appears fabricated.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted a passage and attributed it to Henry v. Gill Inds., Inc.; the court found the quoted language does not appear in that opinion.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted a passage and attributed it to Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.; the court found the quoted language does not appear in that opinion.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the line "At some point, litigation must come to an end" to Cornwell; the court found the quotation does not appear in that case.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a limiting-discovery quotation to Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc.; the court found the quoted language is not in Rivera.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a broad authority-to-limit-discovery quotation to Hallett v. Morgan; the court found the quotation does not appear in that opinion.

Show 1 additional discrepancies

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Gattegno for a proposition about Rule 37(b) that the court found the case does not stand for or discuss.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Preston House v. TH Foods, Inc.?

Why does Preston House v. TH Foods, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Preston House v. TH Foods, Inc.?

Which source supports this Preston House v. TH Foods, Inc. 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.