Lucas v. Scharf (Feb. 25, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Ebony Sherisse Lucas v. Charles W. Scharf, et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Feb. 25, 2026
Majority
Kenneth D. Bell (J.) (unanimous Court)
EBONY SHERISSE LUCAS, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES W. SCHARF;..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 642917Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina,CHARLOTTE DIVISION.EBONY SHERISSE LUCAS, Plaintiff,v.CHARLES W. SCHARF; WELLSFARGO BANK, N.A.; AND ELLENR. PATTERSON, Defendants.CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-01015-KDB-WCM|Filed 02/25/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsEbony Sherisse Lucas, Charlotte, NC, Pro Se.B. Chad Ewing, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP,Charlotte, NC, for Defendants.MEMORANDUM AND ORDERKenneth D. Bell United States District Judge*1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion.Plaintiff sued Defendants in state court for (1) overchargingher interest in violation of the Truth in Savings Act (“TISA”),(2) misapplying fees to her account in violation of TISAand North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade PracticesAct (“UDTPA”), (3) violating the Electronic Fund TransferAct (“EFTA”), and (4) withdrawing funds from a savingsaccount in violation of the EFTA. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 2–3). Defendants removed Plaintiff's complaint to this Courtand moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. (Doc. Nos. 1,3). Plaintiff responded and, after Defendants replied, fileda surreply. (Doc. Nos. 7, 9). Defendants moved to strikePlaintiff's surreply in part because it contains citations tonon-existent caselaw. (Doc. No. 12). Defendants contendthat Plaintiff's citation “errors” are Artificial Intelligence(“AI”) hallucinations and violate this Court's Standing OrderRegarding Use of Artificial Intelligence. (Doc. No. 13).The Court's Standing Order states:[b]riefs and memoranda prepared using [AI] platforms( e.g. ChatGPT) have increased the Court's concernregarding the reliability and accuracy of filings. Inparticular, the Court is concerned regarding whether factualand legal citations or references in court filings have beenproperly vetted by counsel or the pro se parties filingthe documents. There have been several reports aroundthe country regarding courts receiving briefs containingfictitious case cites and unsupported arguments that havebeen generated by AI sources. This order is intended tomitigate these concerns with the following requirements.All attorneys and pro se filers must file a certification withany brief or memorandum submitted to the Court that statesthe following;1. No artificial intelligence was employed in doing theresearch for the preparation of this document, with theexception of such artificial intelligence embedded in thestandard on-line legal research sources Westlaw, Lexis,FastCase, and Bloomberg;2. Every statement and every citation to an authoritycontained in this document has been checked by an attorneyin this case and/or a paralegal working at his/her direction(or the party making the filing if acting pro se) as to theaccuracy of the proposition for which it is offered, and thecitation to authority provided.Here, Plaintiff did not provide the required certification.That makes sense, given that the overwhelming majority ofPlaintiff's case citations are fake and likely AI-generated.Between Plaintiff's response and her surreply, the Courtcounts no less than twelve wholly fraudulent case citations. Inher response, Plaintiff cites the following non-existent cases:1. First Union Nat'l Bank v. Briley, 361 N.C. 148 (2006)2. JLM Indus., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 944F.3d 649 (4th Cir. 2019)3. Wheeler v. Wheeler, 231 N.C. App. 529 (2014)4. Commc'ns v. Hillsborough Holdings, LLC, 200 N.C.App. 648 (2009)5. Horton v. Randolph, 335 N.C. 50 (1993)*2 6. Hercules Inc. v. LeBlanc, 199 N.C. App. 371 (2009)7. Boyce v. Soundview Assocs., 98 N.C. App. 700 (1990)
EBONY SHERISSE LUCAS, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES W. SCHARF;..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.28. Smith v. Brown, 312 N.C. 123 (1984)9. In re Horizon Bank, 738 F.3d 631 (4th Cir. 2013)10. Lindner v. Countrywide Hom Loans, Inc., 447 F. Supp.2d 999 (D. Minn. 2006)(Doc. No. 7). In her reply, Plaintiff cites two more fake cases(Eaton v. Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co., 2020 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 150102 (W.D.N.C.), and Cox v. Chase Bank, N.A.,2015 WL 13654749) and cites a real case for a propositionthat the case does not support (Marash v. Morrill, 496 F.2d1138 (2d Cir. 1974)). (Doc. Nos. 7, 9).Plaintiff's AI generated pleading violates this Court's standingorder and attempts to mislead the Court. The Courtunderstands that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, but that doesnot allow her to flaunt the Court's rules and haphazardlyfile pleadings without completing any due diligence. Evena cursory Google search would reveal that these cases donot exist. Furthermore, AI's limitations at this point are well-documented, and its proclivity for hallucinating case citationsis broadly known. A pro se litigant doing the minimum duediligence would discover that fact.The Court has been extremely lenient on pro se plaintiffsfiling AI-generated pleadings in this Court and has generallyallowed pro se parties to get away with it. But the Court willno longer permit pro se plaintiffs to abuse the Court's leniencyand trust by submitting unverified, AI-generated pleadingsthat waste the Court's time and resources and mislead theCourt.1AI can be a powerful tool for pro se plaintiffs. However, theCourt cannot blindly ignore its risks, including the increasedlikelihood of factual and legal hallucinations.2IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff must showcause as to why her complaint should not be dismissed withprejudice for failing to comply with this Court's StandingOrder Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence. Within 21days of this Court's Order, Plaintiff shall (1) file a brief withthe Court explaining her fraudulent case citations, (2) file amotion to amend her non-compliant pleadings, and (3) certifyto the Court—in each motion or brief filed—that she has andwill comply with this Court's Standing Order Regarding Useof Artificial Intelligence. Failure to do so will result in thedismissal of Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.*3 Signed: February 24, 2026All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 642917Footnotes1The Court notes that this is not Plaintiff's first warning with respect to these issues. See 3:25-cv-832, Doc. No. 10.Further, at least one other case reflects similar problems. See 3:25-cv-1008, Doc. No. 5. Plaintiff is forewarned thatif she continues to file documents without the required AI certification or with AI hallucinations, then the Court may,without further warning, order that documents lacking in AI certification be returned to her without filing. Also, documentscontaining AI hallucinations (notwithstanding a certification) may be summarily stricken and not considered.2Pro se parties should also be aware that their “conversations” with AI tools such as ChatGPT are not privileged and maybe subject to discovery.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access