AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 15, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 11, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesSarah & Regina Alonso v. Jackson
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 90/100. 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

Sarah & Regina Alonso v. Jackson

W.D. Washington · Mar 17, 2026

WA / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationscivil rightstrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to plaintiffs' counsel regarding the citation of a non-existent case, 'Allen v. Bayshore Mall.' The court explicitly cautioned that the submission of fictitious legal authority is sanctionable under Rule 11 and warned that it would issue an order to show cause if counsel again submitted such material.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that citing non-existent case law constitutes a false statement to the court, which is sanctionable under Rule 11. It observed that the inability to locate the cited 'Allen v. Bayshore Mall' suggested improper oversight of generative AI or similar text-generation tools.
Why it matters now
One fabricated citation in a motion to amend earns a Rule 11 warning on the docket; verify before you sign, not after the court flags it.

Why this matter is tracked

In a civil rights action, the W.D. Washington court granted a motion to dismiss claims against defendant Nesiamotu, Inc. for insufficient service of process. During its review, the court identified that the plaintiffs cited a non-existent case, 'Allen v. Bayshore Mall,' in their filings. The court noted that the inability to locate this authority suggested the potential use of generative AI or other large language model tools to produce misleading legal citations. While the court did not impose immediate monetary sanctions, it issued a formal warning to plaintiffs' counsel, stating that the submission of fictitious legal authority is grounds for Rule 11 sanctions and that it would issue an order to show cause if such conduct recurred.

Operational lesson

One fabricated citation in a motion to amend earns a Rule 11 warning on the docket; verify before you sign, not after the court flags it.

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope
Explore WAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtW.D. Washington
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMar 17, 2026
GE
AI toolGenerative AI (unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court dismissed the claims against one defendant and issued a formal warning to plaintiffs' counsel regarding the use of fictitious legal authority.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionFormal warning issued to counsel regarding potential Rule 11 sanctions.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court noted the possibility of improper oversight of generative AI.

Procedural posture

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process under Rule 12(b)(5) and issued a warning regarding the use of fictitious legal authority.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a non-existent case "Allen v. Bayshore Mall" in support of leave to amend; Court could not locate the opinion and noted possible AI-generated fabrication, warning counsel of potential Rule 11 sanctions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Sarah & Regina Alonso v. Jackson?
The court issued a formal warning to plaintiffs' counsel regarding the citation of a non-existent case, 'Allen v. Bayshore Mall.' The court explicitly cautioned that the submission of fictitious legal authority is sanctionable under Rule 11 and warned that it would issue an order to show cause if counsel again submitted such material.
Why does Sarah & Regina Alonso v. Jackson matter for legal AI risk?
One fabricated citation in a motion to amend earns a Rule 11 warning on the docket; verify before you sign, not after the court flags it.
What does the public record establish about Sarah & Regina Alonso v. Jackson?
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 Sarah & Regina Alonso v. Jackson 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.

Jordan Slach v. City of Battle GroundW.D. Washington · Jul 2, 2026same court · fake citations + civil rightsMerz v. City of KalamaW.D. Washington · Feb 13, 2026same court · fake citations + civil rightsKrystle J. Lyons v. Oak Harbor School DistrictW.D. Washington · Dec 23, 2025same court · fake citations + civil rightsMitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1)W.D. Washington · Oct 17, 2025same court · fake citations + civil rightsBeenshoof v. ChinW.D. Washington · May 15, 2025same court · fake citations + civil rightsWilliam Nelson v. Washington Board of Industrial AppealsW.D. Washington · Jun 26, 2025same court · fake citations + civil rights