Terrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.
E.D. New York · May 6, 2026 · Hector Gonzalez
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- E.D. New York
- Record ID
- terrance-anthony-norris-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank-n-a-2026-05-06
- Observed outcome
- The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding the use of fake citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff for submitting briefs containing fabricated case law and nonexistent quotations. The court dismissed the underlying complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and warned that future reliance on nonexistent authority would result in sanctions.
The court reasoned that submitting fake citations is an abuse of the adversary system that wastes judicial resources and harms the legal system's reputation. It held that pro se status does not excuse the submission of misleading or nonexistent authorities.
This case illustrates the judiciary's firm stance against the use of AI-generated or otherwise fabricated legal research by pro se litigants, reinforcing that the duty of candor and accuracy applies to all parties regardless of representation status.
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 granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and issued a warning regarding the plaintiff's use of fabricated legal authorities.
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 document does not name a specific tool, but the context of the 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.