Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Sarah & Regina Alonso v. Jackson
W.D. Washington · Mar 17, 2026
WA / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationscivil rightstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
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. 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
- 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
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. Outcome: Warning.
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
CourtW.D. Washington
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMar 17, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) 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
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- 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?
- 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. Outcome: Warning.
- 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.