Tamisha Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia et al/
SC Georgia · Jan 6, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court imposed a monetary sanction of $2,632.00 and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. The sanctions were issued under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14(b) due to the plaintiff's repeated submission of AI-generated, fabricated, and misrepresented case citations in her pleadings, which lacked any basis in Georgia law.
- Why the court cared
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Williams v. Streeval, 301 Ga. App. 455 (2009)" for the proposition that an answer filed without authority is a nullity; court found the named opinion was a non-Georgia trial court opinion and the citation actually points to In re M.O., 301 Ga. App. 453 (2009). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Fisher v. State, 272 Ga. 883 (2000)" to support authority for invalid unauthorized representation; court found no such Fisher decision exists and the citation actually leads to Mosley v. State, 272 Ga. 881 (2000), which does not support plaintiff's proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited and quoted "Wallace v. Wallace, 271 Ga. 130, 130-31 (1999)" claiming a quote about pleadings filed without authority; court found the quote does not appear in Georgia law and the citation directs to White v. State, 271 Ga. 130 (1999), which is unrelated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 277 Ga. 198 (2003)" as reaffirming that courts may strike unauthorized pleadings; court found no Georgia Supreme Court case by that caption and the citation points to Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 195 (2003), unrelated.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC Georgia, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Why this matter is tracked
The Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, sanctioned a pro se plaintiff for repeatedly submitting pleadings containing fabricated and misrepresented case law generated by artificial intelligence. Despite being alerted to the issue, the plaintiff failed to provide a valid explanation or defense for the citations. The court found that the plaintiff's conduct wasted judicial resources, hindered the administration of justice, and violated procedural requirements. Consequently, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $2,632.00 in attorney's fees to the defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court emphasized that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as counsel regarding the submission of authentic legal authority.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC Georgia, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court refers to the citations as AI-generated hallucinations.
The court granted the defendants' motion for attorney's fees and sanctions following a hearing held on December 10, 2025, and issued a final order on January 6, 2026.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Williams v. Streeval, 301 Ga. App. 455 (2009)" for the proposition that an answer filed without authority is a nullity; court found the named opinion was a non-Georgia trial court opinion and the citation actually points to In re M.O., 301 Ga. App. 453 (2009).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Fisher v. State, 272 Ga. 883 (2000)" to support authority for invalid unauthorized representation; court found no such Fisher decision exists and the citation actually leads to Mosley v. State, 272 Ga. 881 (2000), which does not support plaintiff's proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited and quoted "Wallace v. Wallace, 271 Ga. 130, 130-31 (1999)" claiming a quote about pleadings filed without authority; court found the quote does not appear in Georgia law and the citation directs to White v. State, 271 Ga. 130 (1999), which is unrelated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 277 Ga. 198 (2003)" as reaffirming that courts may strike unauthorized pleadings; court found no Georgia Supreme Court case by that caption and the citation points to Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 195 (2003), unrelated.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Tamisha Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia et al/?
- The court imposed a monetary sanction of $2,632.00 and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. The sanctions were issued under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14(b) due to the plaintiff's repeated submission of AI-generated, fabricated, and misrepresented case citations in her pleadings, which lacked any basis in Georgia law.
- Why does Tamisha Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia et al/ matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC Georgia, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
- What does the public record establish about Tamisha Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia et al/?
- 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 Tamisha Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia et al/ 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.