Which source supports this Sebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (1) 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.

HomeCasesSebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (1)

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

Sebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (1)

N.D. California · Nov 25, 2025

CA / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations civil rights trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court ordered the pro se plaintiff to include a mandatory footnote reading 'Located through AI; Checked' for every future citation in the litigation that was identified using an AI tool, following the plaintiff's submission of fabricated case law in opposition briefs.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition briefs cited non-existent case law; Notices of Errata submitted 'corrected' citations that differed substantially from originals; court found likely AI-generated citations.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. California, with the listed outcome: Order to include a footnote reading 'Located through AI; Checked' for each future citation.

Why this matter is tracked

In a civil rights and employment action, the pro se plaintiff submitted opposition briefs containing non-existent case law. After the defendants identified these errors in their reply briefs, the plaintiff filed 'Notices of Errata' providing 'corrected' citations that differed substantially from the originals. The court determined these were likely AI-generated hallucinations. While the court acknowledged the plaintiff's attempt to correct the record, it expressed concern regarding the failure to verify legal authorities. Consequently, the court ordered that in all future filings, the plaintiff must include a specific footnote for any citation located through an AI tool, confirming the authority was located via AI and that the plaintiff has verified its existence and accuracy.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. California, with the listed outcome: Order to include a footnote reading 'Located through AI; Checked' for each future citation.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtN.D. California

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateNov 25, 2025

AI toolAI (unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court dismissed the False Claims Act retaliation claim with leave to amend and imposed a mandatory footnote requirement for all future AI-assisted citations.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The court refers to AI tools generally.

Procedural posture

Order on motions to dismiss; the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the False Claims Act retaliation claim with leave to amend and issued a standing order regarding AI-generated citations.

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 | Plaintiff's opposition briefs cited non-existent case law; Notices of Errata submitted 'corrected' citations that differed substantially from originals; court found likely AI-generated citations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Sebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (1)?: The court ordered the pro se plaintiff to include a mandatory footnote reading 'Located through AI; Checked' for every future citation in the litigation that was identified using an AI tool, following the plaintiff's submission of fabricated case law in opposition briefs.
Why does Sebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (1) matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. California, with the listed outcome: Order to include a footnote reading 'Located through AI; Checked' for each future citation.
What does the public record establish about Sebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (1)?: 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 Sebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (1) 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.

Hang Zhang v. Daniel DriscollN.D. California · Jan 14, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Thomas Joseph Goddard v. Sares-Regis Group, Inc., et al.N.D. California · Oct 21, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Adrienne Hankins v. Dentons US LLP, et al.N.D. California · Jun 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Louis L. Ligon III v. Meta Platforms, Inc.N.D. California · Apr 28, 2026same court · pro se + civil rights Najafpir v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.N.D. California · Apr 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Saqib Kafeel v. Apple Inc., et al.N.D. California · Apr 1, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open N.D. California profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology