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.

HomeCasesReketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC

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 85/100. 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

Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC

E.D. North Carolina · Jan 13, 2026

NC / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations employment trial Warning

Direct answer

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 filed by the pro se plaintiff; the court found the citations to be fictitious and relied on that finding in denying leave to amend.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. North Carolina, with the listed outcome: Warning.

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.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. North Carolina, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

North CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtE.D. North Carolina

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit4th Circuit

DateJan 13, 2026

AI toolUnidentified digital research tools

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe 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.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

Plaintiff admitted relying on digital research tools.

Procedural posture

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

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 filed by the pro se plaintiff; the court found the citations to be fictitious and relied on that finding in denying leave to amend.

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: Warning.
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.

Damon Forney v. Township of Cary, North CarolinaE.D. North Carolina · Aug 3, 2026same court · fake citations + employment Christine Thomas v. United States Department of Justice, et al.E.D. North Carolina · Jul 15, 2026same court · fake citations + employment Curry v. Capital One Auto FinanceE.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Letts v. Avidien TechnologiesE.D. North Carolina · Dec 16, 2024same court · pro se + fake citations United States of America v. Lorenzio Reshaud SimmonsE.D. North Carolina · Oct 3, 2025same court · fake citations + trial Derence V. Fivehouse v. United States Department of Defense et al.E.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2026same court · fake citations + trial

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 E.D. North Carolina 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