Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC
S.D. Indiana · Sep 17, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court admonished the pro se plaintiff for repeatedly citing non-existent case law and incorporating AI-generated placeholder text into court filings. The court warned that any further failure to comply with procedural rules or the submission of fabricated authorities would result in sanctions, which may include the dismissal of the case.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the plaintiff's filings contained non-existent case law and AI-generated placeholder text, violating the duty under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) to ensure legal contentions are warranted by existing law after reasonable inquiry.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools without verification, resulting in the submission of 'hallucinated' case law and template artifacts. It highlights the court's role in policing AI-assisted filings through formal admonishments and warnings of future sanctions.
Why this matter is tracked
In a contract dispute, the S.D. Indiana court stayed proceedings pending the outcome of a parallel state court action. During the litigation, the pro se plaintiff submitted filings containing multiple citations to non-existent case law and included AI-generated placeholder text, such as bracketed instructions for inserting distinguishing facts. The court previously struck a prior brief for similar errors and issued a formal admonishment. In its September 17, 2025 order, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for sanctions against the defendant, reiterated its admonishment regarding the use of non-existent authority, and warned that further non-compliance with procedural rules or the submission of fabricated citations could result in sanctions, including the potential dismissal of the action.
This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools without verification, resulting in the submission of 'hallucinated' case law and template artifacts. It highlights the court's role in policing AI-assisted filings through formal admonishments and warnings of future sanctions.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court noted the use of 'some form of AI'.
The court granted the defendant's motion to stay proceedings under the Colorado River abstention doctrine and denied the plaintiff's motion to strike and request for sanctions.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's filings contained multiple other citations to cases the Court could not locate and deemed non-existent.
- Misrepresented: Other | Plaintiff's brief included AI-style placeholder language and bracketed instructions indicating use of an AI-generated draft, undermining the brief's substantive citations/arguments.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent Eastern District of Kentucky decision to support a legal principle; the Court found the case does not exist and that similar-cited cases from Florida did not support Plaintiff's asserted principle.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC?
- The court admonished the pro se plaintiff for repeatedly citing non-existent case law and incorporating AI-generated placeholder text into court filings. The court warned that any further failure to comply with procedural rules or the submission of fabricated authorities would result in sanctions, which may include the dismissal of the case.
- Why does Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools without verification, resulting in the submission of 'hallucinated' case law and template artifacts. It highlights the court's role in policing AI-assisted filings through formal admonishments and warnings of future sanctions.
- What does the public record establish about Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC 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.