Which source supports this Yakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria Malvar 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.

HomeCasesYakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria Malvar

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

Yakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria Malvar

S.D. New York · Nov 24, 2025

NY / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations misrepresented authority employment None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismissed ERISA claims after finding the plaintiff's filings contained fabricated case law and misrepresented facts, which the court attributed to AI hallucination. No monetary sanctions were imposed, but the court explicitly cautioned the plaintiff regarding the consequences of such filings.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Connel v. ByteDance, Inc., No. 24-1886 (2d Cir. Jul. 15, 2025)' but the docket number pointed to a different case and the Northern District of California case with that caption did not support plaintiff's claimed holding; Court concluded the citation was incorrect/nonexistent. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Multiple briefed authorities either could not be located, were cited with the wrong reporters, or their substance differed materially from plaintiff's characterization. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff misrepresented basic docket facts and filings (e.g., claimed defendants delayed raising arbitration and waited months), which the Court found contradicted the record.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In an employment dispute, the S.D. New York court addressed motions to remand, dismiss, and compel arbitration. The court identified that the pro se plaintiff's briefing contained numerous fabricated case citations, mischaracterized authorities, and misrepresented docket facts. The court noted that the defendant suggested these errors resulted from AI hallucination, a conclusion with which the court agreed. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, dismissed ERISA-related claims, and granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, staying the proceedings. The court emphasized that while AI may be a helpful tool, the use of fake citations and factual misrepresentations undermines a litigant's credibility and violates the duty of good faith in court filings.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtS.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateNov 24, 2025

AI toolAI (unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeMotions to remand denied; ERISA claims dismissed; motions to compel arbitration granted; cases stayed.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The court noted the defendant suggested AI hallucination, and the court agreed.

Procedural posture

Opinion and Order resolving motions to remand, dismiss, and compel arbitration.

Correction behavior

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 cited 'Connel v. ByteDance, Inc., No. 24-1886 (2d Cir. Jul. 15, 2025)' but the docket number pointed to a different case and the Northern District of California case with that caption did not support plaintiff's claimed holding; Court concluded the citation was incorrect/nonexistent.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Multiple briefed authorities either could not be located, were cited with the wrong reporters, or their substance differed materially from plaintiff's characterization.
Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff misrepresented basic docket facts and filings (e.g., claimed defendants delayed raising arbitration and waited months), which the Court found contradicted the record.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Yakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria Malvar?: The court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismissed ERISA claims after finding the plaintiff's filings contained fabricated case law and misrepresented facts, which the court attributed to AI hallucination. No monetary sanctions were imposed, but the court explicitly cautioned the plaintiff regarding the consequences of such filings.
Why does Yakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria Malvar matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Yakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria Malvar?: 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 Yakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria Malvar 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.

Fernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, et al.S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLCS.D. New York · Apr 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Tameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.S.D. New York · Nov 26, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Zero Point MGMT v. Chase Bank/JP Morgan Chase Co.S.D. New York · Nov 24, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Jorge Paredes Guevara v. A&P Restaurant Corp., et al.S.D. New York · Nov 18, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open S.D. New York profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology