Sayali Kulkarni & Abhijit Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection Board
CA Federal Circuit · Dec 15, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- CA Federal Circuit
- Record ID
- sayali-kulkarni-abhijit-kulkarni-v-merit-systems-protection-board-2025-12-15
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the Board's dismissal of the underlying claims and granted the respondent's motions to strike the petitioners' informal reply briefs.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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).
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Fabricated_quotations
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Administrative
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- 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.
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 petitioners' refusal to admit to using AI-generated hallucinations.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.