Yakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria Malvar
S.D. New York · Nov 24, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. New York
- Record ID
- yakov-magdalasov-v-bytedance-inc-tiktok-inc-and-maria-malvar-2025-11-24
- Observed outcome
- Motions to remand denied; ERISA claims dismissed; motions to compel arbitration granted; cases stayed.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Employment
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Opinion and Order resolving motions to remand, dismiss, and compel arbitration.
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 defendant suggested AI hallucination, and the court agreed.
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.