HomeCasesRobert Allen Reed et al. v. Community Health Care et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Robert Allen Reed et al. v. Community Health Care et al.

W.D. Washington · Oct 14, 2025

WA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstorttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited “Flores v. United States, 189 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 1999)”; the Court found this decision does not exist and identified it as part of a pattern of fictitious citations. Outcome: Warning.

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

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtW.D. Washington

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateOct 14, 2025

AI toolimplied

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

implied is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited “Flores v. United States, 189 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 1999)”; the Court found this decision does not exist and identified it as part of a pattern of fictitious citations.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited “Abbey v. United States, 953 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1991)”; the Court determined this decision does not exist and characterized it as fictitious.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited “Urrutia, 44 F.3d at 1265” as authority; the Court identified this citation among decisions that do not exist and treated it as fabricated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs relied on “State v. Kaiser, 198 Wn. App. 142 (2017)” to support a WCPA theory; the Court found no such decision exists and labeled the citation fictitious.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited “Right v. Breen, 128 Wn. App. 104 (2005)” for defamation law; the Court concluded this authority does not exist and flagged it as fabricated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Robert Allen Reed et al. v. Community Health Care et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited “Flores v. United States, 189 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 1999)”; the Court found this decision does not exist and identified it as part of a pattern of fictitious citations. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Robert Allen Reed et al. v. Community Health Care et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving implied with Warning in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Robert Allen Reed et al. v. Community Health Care et al.?: 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 Robert Allen Reed et al. v. Community Health Care 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.

Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLCW.D. Washington · Jan 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (2)W.D. Washington · Jan 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Rebecca Jean v. Seattle Credit UnionW.D. Washington · Jul 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Jordan Slach v. City of Battle GroundW.D. Washington · Jul 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ward v. Amazon.com Services LLCW.D. Washington · Apr 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Rosa Maria Cabrera Thompson v. Seattle Public SchoolsW.D. Washington · 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

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

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving implied with Warning in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited “Abbey v. United States, 953 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1991)”; the Court determined this decision does not exist and characterized it as fictitious.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited “Urrutia, 44 F.3d at 1265” as authority; the Court identified this citation among decisions that do not exist and treated it as fabricated.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs relied on “State v. Kaiser, 198 Wn. App. 142 (2017)” to support a WCPA theory; the Court found no such decision exists and labeled the citation fictitious.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited “Right v. Breen, 128 Wn. App. 104 (2005)” for defamation law; the Court concluded this authority does not exist and flagged it as fabricated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Robert Allen Reed et al. v. Community Health Care et al.?

Why does Robert Allen Reed et al. v. Community Health Care et al. matter for legal AI risk?

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving implied with Warning in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

What does the public record establish about Robert Allen Reed et al. v. Community Health Care et al.?

Which source supports this Robert Allen Reed et al. v. Community Health Care 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.