Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
E.D. North Carolina · Jan 13, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court denied the pro se plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her opposition to a motion to dismiss after identifying that she had included numerous fictitious or fake case citations in her filings. The court emphasized that pro se litigants remain bound by Rule 11 requirements despite their reliance on digital research tools.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant identified numerous fictitious or fake case citations in both memoranda in opposition and in the proposed third one; the order records this without listing the citations or stating that the court verified them, and denied the motion to amend the opposition for lack of good cause.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. North Carolina, with the listed outcome: Motion for leave to amend the opposition denied for lack of good cause; defendant's motion granted and the case closed; the order records that, as identified by defendant, plaintiff's opposition memoranda contained numerous fictitious citations (she said she relied on digital research tools) and that pro se status does not excuse Rule 11 compliance; nothing imposed on plaintiff for the citations.
Why this matter is tracked
In this employment discrimination action, the pro se plaintiff submitted multiple memoranda in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss. The defendant identified that these filings contained numerous fictitious or fake case citations. The plaintiff admitted to relying on digital research tools to assist with her legal research but denied knowingly citing fabricated authorities. The court noted that pro se status does not excuse compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 11. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her opposition and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, citing the plaintiff's failure to plausibly allege claims and her failure to comply with procedural rules.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. North Carolina, with the listed outcome: Motion for leave to amend the opposition denied for lack of good cause; defendant's motion granted and the case closed; the order records that, as identified by defendant, plaintiff's opposition memoranda contained numerous fictitious citations (she said she relied on digital research tools) and that pro se status does not excuse Rule 11 compliance; nothing imposed on plaintiff for the citations.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Plaintiff admitted relying on digital research tools.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
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 | Defendant identified numerous fictitious or fake case citations in both memoranda in opposition and in the proposed third one; the order records this without listing the citations or stating that the court verified them, and denied the motion to amend the opposition for lack of good cause.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC?
- The court denied the pro se plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her opposition to a motion to dismiss after identifying that she had included numerous fictitious or fake case citations in her filings. The court emphasized that pro se litigants remain bound by Rule 11 requirements despite their reliance on digital research tools.
- Why does Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. North Carolina, with the listed outcome: Motion for leave to amend the opposition denied for lack of good cause; defendant's motion granted and the case closed; the order records that, as identified by defendant, plaintiff's opposition memoranda contained numerous fictitious citations (she said she relied on digital research tools) and that pro se status does not excuse Rule 11 compliance; nothing imposed on plaintiff for the citations.
- What does the public record establish about Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, 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 Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, 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.
This record mentions Rule 11. See Rule 11 sanctions for AI-generated citations for the rule text and counts across the corpus.
This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.