AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesRomero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA
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

Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA

S.D. New York · Jun 25, 2025 · Gregory H. Woods

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified fictitious and misrepresented case citations in a pro se filing. While noting these errors resembled generative AI hallucinations, the court expressly declined to find that the plaintiff used AI and took no immediate sanctioning action, instead issuing a formal warning regarding Rule 11 verification obligations.

Why the court cared
Before reaching the motion's merits, the court flagged the unsupported and fictitious authorities and reminded the parties of Rule 11's certification obligation.
Why it matters now
The order identifies serious citation defects while preserving the distinction between an AI suspicion and a verified finding of AI use.

Why this matter is tracked

Michael Cordero Romero, proceeding pro se, filed a motion in limine concerning evidence on a motion to compel arbitration. The Southern District of New York found that one cited Second Circuit case did not concern the proposition asserted and did not contain the quoted language, while a second purported Beckford decision appeared wholly fictitious. The court noted the hallmarks of generative-AI hallucination but made no AI finding and took no immediate action because Romero was self-represented. It instead reminded the parties of Rule 11 certification obligations.

Operational lesson

The order identifies serious citation defects while preserving the distinction between an AI suspicion and a verified finding of AI use.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtS.D. New York
Recorded decision-makerGregory H. Woods · United States District Judge
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateJun 25, 2025
GE
AI toolgenerative artificial intelligence
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court issued a warning regarding Rule 11 obligations and the risks of AI-generated hallucinations, but imposed no sanctions.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court referenced the emblems of generative artificial intelligence tools.

Procedural posture

Order issued by the court sua sponte following the plaintiff's filing of a motion in limine.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to In re Motors Liquidation Co. that the opinion does not contain.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff submitted a fictitious case citation; no case exists at the cited Westlaw citation and the identified Beckford cases are different and unrelated.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misrepresented In re Motors Liquidation Co. as addressing what evidence may be presented in a reply brief; the case is unrelated to that topic.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA?
The court identified fictitious and misrepresented case citations in a pro se filing. While noting these errors resembled generative AI hallucinations, the court expressly declined to find that the plaintiff used AI and took no immediate sanctioning action, instead issuing a formal warning regarding Rule 11 verification obligations.
Why does Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA matter for legal AI risk?
The order identifies serious citation defects while preserving the distinction between an AI suspicion and a verified finding of AI use.
What does the public record establish about Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA?
The court described emblems of generative-AI use but expressly did not find that Romero had used a generative-AI tool.
Which source supports this Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA 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.

Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLCS.D. New York · Apr 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsSaregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsTameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.S.D. New York · Nov 26, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsFecteau v. Safety National Casualty CorporationS.D. New York · Mar 25, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsAvalon Holdings Corp. v. Guy GentileS.D. New York · Jan 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBurlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al.S.D. New York · Dec 17, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes