Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC
E.D. North Carolina · Jan 13, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- E.D. North Carolina
- Record ID
- reketta-l-montgomery-v-acquisition-experts-llc-2026-01-13
- Observed outcome
- 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.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Employment
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified digital research tools
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- 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.
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
Plaintiff admitted relying on digital research tools.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.