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
HomeCasesSayali Kulkarni & Abhijit Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection Board
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 85/100. 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

Sayali Kulkarni & Abhijit Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection Board

CA Federal Circuit · Dec 15, 2025

/ federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesadministrativeStruck Filing
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision and granted the respondent's motions to strike the petitioners' informal reply briefs. The court determined that the briefs contained multiple fictitious case citations and fabricated quotations, and that the pro se petitioners failed to acknowledge or take responsibility for these errors.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief cites “Special Counsel v. Hatch, 654 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011),” a citation the court identifies as incorrect (reporter citation actually corresponds to CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Court treated this as a fictitious/misleading citation in the briefing and relied on it as basis to strike the briefs. || False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief quotes language attributed to Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) that the court states does not appear in that opinion (a false quotation attributed to an existing case).
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Federal Circuit, with the listed outcome: Affirmed the Board; granted motions to strike the Kulkarnis' informal reply briefs containing the false citations/quotes.

Why this matter is tracked

In an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's dismissal of the petitioners' whistleblower reprisal claims. During the appellate process, the pro se petitioners submitted informal reply briefs containing multiple citations to non-existent case law and fabricated quotations attributed to existing Supreme Court precedent. The court noted that the petitioners refused to accept responsibility for these errors or acknowledge the use of AI-generated content. Finding that the inclusion of fictitious citations and misleading quotes violated basic standards of practice, the court granted the respondent's motions to strike the petitioners' informal reply briefs in their entirety.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Federal Circuit, with the listed outcome: Affirmed the Board; granted motions to strike the Kulkarnis' informal reply briefs containing the false citations/quotes.

Record details

CourtCA Federal Circuit
Jurisdictionfederal
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 15, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court affirmed the Board's dismissal of the underlying claims and granted the respondent's motions to strike the petitioners' informal reply briefs.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court noted the petitioners' refusal to admit to using AI-generated hallucinations.

Procedural posture

Petition for review of Merit Systems Protection Board final orders; respondent moved to strike petitioners' informal reply briefs due to the inclusion of fabricated citations and quotes.

Correction behavior

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief cites “Special Counsel v. Hatch, 654 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011),” a citation the court identifies as incorrect (reporter citation actually corresponds to CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Court treated this as a fictitious/misleading citation in the briefing and relied on it as basis to strike the briefs.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief quotes language attributed to Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) that the court states does not appear in that opinion (a false quotation attributed to an existing case).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Sayali Kulkarni & Abhijit Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection Board?
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision and granted the respondent's motions to strike the petitioners' informal reply briefs. The court determined that the briefs contained multiple fictitious case citations and fabricated quotations, and that the pro se petitioners failed to acknowledge or take responsibility for these errors.
Why does Sayali Kulkarni & Abhijit Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection Board matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Federal Circuit, with the listed outcome: Affirmed the Board; granted motions to strike the Kulkarnis' informal reply briefs containing the false citations/quotes.
What does the public record establish about Sayali Kulkarni & Abhijit Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection Board?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Sayali Kulkarni & Abhijit Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection Board 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.

Khan v. Howard County BAPCA Maryland · Jul 20, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Arthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway GroupCA Washington · Apr 20, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Eliott Williamson v. TransUnion LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc.11th Cir. CA · May 4, 2026pro se + fake citationsKeith Powell v. Employment Dep. & First Congregational Church of PortlandCA Oregon · Feb 11, 2026pro se + fake citationsWRI Summit REIT LP v. KuerschnerCA Arizona (1d) · Aug 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Harding Place Multifamily Partners v. Samuel RobinsonCA Tennessee · Jul 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)