Tamisha Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia et al/
SC Georgia · Jan 6, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC Georgia
- Record ID
- tamisha-shaw-v-coast-dental-of-georgia-et-al-2026-01-06
- Observed outcome
- The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $2,632.00 in attorney's fees and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,632
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC Georgia, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Other
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified generative AI
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,632
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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 refers to the citations as 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.
- Escalate and correct a suspect filing promptly, with a documented response.