Sarah & Regina Alonso v. Jackson
W.D. Washington · Mar 17, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- W.D. Washington
- Record ID
- sarah-regina-alonso-v-jackson-2026-03-17
- Observed outcome
- The court dismissed the claims against one defendant and issued a formal warning to plaintiffs' counsel regarding the use of fictitious legal authority.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- 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.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court noted the possibility of improper oversight of generative AI.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.