SWSZ Holding v. SZ Global
SC Delaware · May 27, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC Delaware
- Record ID
- swsz-holding-v-sz-global-2026-05-27
- Observed outcome
- The Court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and provided the litigant with leave to refile.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court issued a warning to a pro se litigant for citing seven nonexistent legal authorities. The Court denied the litigant's motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted leave to refile, explicitly stating that it would not tolerate the citation of fabricated authorities in its proceedings.
The Court determined that the litigant's cited authorities and quoted language were nonexistent and could not be verified, leading to the denial of the motion and a warning regarding the Court's intolerance for such filings.
This case illustrates the judicial response to the submission of fabricated legal authorities by a pro se litigant. It highlights the Court's expectation for verification of all cited materials and the procedural consequences of failing to meet basic research standards.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Contract
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The Court denied the litigant's motion to dismiss without prejudice, citing the use of nonexistent authorities, and granted leave to refile by November 14, 2026.
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 source does not name a specific tool, but the context of fabricated citations implies AI usage.
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.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or 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.