Which source supports this Ravi Kadiyala v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing et al. 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.

HomeCasesRavi Kadiyala v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing et al.

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

Ravi Kadiyala v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing et al.

N.D. Illinois · Feb 6, 2026

IL / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations contract trial Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant after identifying a fabricated case citation in his filing. The judge explicitly inferred the use of an AI tool based on the citation's format and non-existence, cautioning the plaintiff that future filings must comply with Rule 11 obligations regarding factual and legal accuracy.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's filing cited a non-existent opinion; the court found the citation did not exist, inferred AI use, and warned of possible Rule 11 sanctions.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Illinois, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a pro se mortgage litigation, the plaintiff cited a non-existent case, 'Chicago Title & Land Tr. Co. v. JS II, LLC, No. 11-cv-50249, 2012 WL 2343416 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2012).' The court identified the citation as non-existent and explicitly inferred the use of an AI tool based on the formatting and the nature of the error. The court issued a warning to the plaintiff, reminding him that all litigants, regardless of representation, must verify the accuracy of their filings and legal citations. The court cautioned that failure to comply with these obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 could result in future sanctions.

Operational lesson

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

Record details

IllinoisSingle-state evidence scope

Explore ILOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtN.D. Illinois

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateFeb 6, 2026

AI toolAI (unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court issued a warning regarding the use of AI and the duty of candor in filings, while granting the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court inferred the use of an AI tool based on the motion's format.

Procedural posture

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and denying Plaintiff's motion to remand.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's filing cited a non-existent opinion; the court found the citation did not exist, inferred AI use, and warned of possible Rule 11 sanctions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ravi Kadiyala v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing et al.?: The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant after identifying a fabricated case citation in his filing. The judge explicitly inferred the use of an AI tool based on the citation's format and non-existence, cautioning the plaintiff that future filings must comply with Rule 11 obligations regarding factual and legal accuracy.
Why does Ravi Kadiyala v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Illinois, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Ravi Kadiyala v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing et al.?: 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 Ravi Kadiyala v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing et al. 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.

BFG Corporation v. Pierce RE Holdings et al.N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Allison v. Shutterfly LifeTouch LLCN.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Saqib Kafeel v. CJDropshippingN.D. Illinois · May 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations BFG aka Byline Financial v. Pierce RE Holdings & BrewsterN.D. Illinois · Sep 24, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Graciela Dela Torre v. Davies Life & Health, Inc., et al.N.D. Illinois · Apr 11, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Ella and Ramin LLC v. Travelers Insurance CompanyN.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2026same 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 Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open N.D. Illinois profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology