Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC
S.D. Indiana · Sep 17, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. Indiana
- Record ID
- tsupko-v-kinetic-advantage-llc-2025-09-17
- Observed outcome
- The court stayed the federal proceedings pending the outcome of a parallel state court case and issued a final admonishment to the pro se plaintiff regarding the submission of fabricated case law.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated: Case Law
- Misrepresented: Other
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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 noted the use of 'some form of AI'.
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.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- 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.