Samantha Roussell v. The Bank of New York Mellon
CA Florida · Mar 11, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant after identifying thirteen fabricated cases and nine misrepresented cases in an appellate brief. While the court noted its authority to impose sanctions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a), it ultimately declined to sanction the appellant in this specific matter.
- Why the court cared
- The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Appellant's brief cited thirteen cases that do not exist; the court expressly disregarded these fabricated cases..
- Why it matters now
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Why this matter is tracked
In Samantha Roussell v. The Bank of New York Mellon, the CA Florida addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant's brief cited thirteen cases that do not exist; the court expressly disregarded these fabricated cases. The recorded procedural consequence is Warning. The entry is dated 2026-03-11. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court explicitly referenced the use of artificial intelligence in brief preparation.
Appellate review of a circuit court decision; the court affirmed the lower court's decision on the merits while issuing a warning regarding the appellant's briefing conduct.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited thirteen cases that do not exist; the court expressly disregarded these fabricated cases.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited nine existing cases but attributed propositions to them that they do not support; the court noted these misrepresentations.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Samantha Roussell v. The Bank of New York Mellon?
- The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant after identifying thirteen fabricated cases and nine misrepresented cases in an appellate brief. While the court noted its authority to impose sanctions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a), it ultimately declined to sanction the appellant in this specific matter.
- Why does Samantha Roussell v. The Bank of New York Mellon matter for legal AI risk?
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
- What does the public record establish about Samantha Roussell v. The Bank of New York Mellon?
- Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
- Which source supports this Samantha Roussell v. The Bank of New York Mellon 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.