Aponte v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas · E.D. Ark. · Arkansas bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se FDCPA plaintiff filed papers with defective citations triggering show-cause orders for possible AI hallucination.
Consequence
Plaintiff filed apology and response; Marshall discharged show-cause orders without imposing any monetary or non-monetary sanction.
Lesson
Apology + responsive briefing can clear an AI-hallucination show-cause order in E.D. Ark.; sanction is not automatic.
Verified May 8, 2026
- Citation
- Aponte v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 4:24-cv-01053-DPM (E.D. Ark. Apr. 9, 2025) (Marshall, C.J.)
- Decided
- April 9, 2025
Summary
Aponte, proceeding pro se, brought a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC in the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division (No. 4:24-cv-01053-DPM). After defective citations surfaced in plaintiff's filings, Chief Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. issued show-cause orders (ECF 24, March 4, 2025; ECF 28). After Aponte filed a responsive submission and apology, Judge Marshall issued an April 9, 2025 order discharging the show-cause orders and declining to impose any sanctions.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI implied; the show-cause order addressed defective citations characteristic of AI hallucination output
What sanction did the court impose?
Show-cause Orders ECF 24 and ECF 28 discharged. No sanctions imposed. Order signed by Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. on April 9, 2025 (ECF 30). The court accepted Aponte's "response and apology" and discharged the show-cause orders without monetary or non-monetary sanction. The matter proceeded to ordinary case management.
Why does Aponte v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC matter for law firms using AI?
Aponte v. Portfolio Recovery Associates is the first surfaced AI-hallucination matter on Chief Judge D.P. Marshall Jr.’s E.D. Ark. docket. The disposition is unusual: rather than imposing a sanction, Marshall discharged the show-cause orders without penalty after Aponte filed an apology and response. The order is brief (one paragraph) and is captured in the CourtListener RECAP cache (ECF 30). Cross-reference: Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc. (E.D. Ark. Dec. 2, 2025) (Marshall, C.J.) for the same chambers’ second AI-fabrication matter, eight months later. The tonal shift between the two orders (Aponte permissive, Magee less is so) is one of the more visible chambers-practice trajectories in this district.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- When a pro se opponent in E.D. Ark. faces an AI-citation show-cause order, anticipate that an apology and substantive response may discharge the order; Marshall's April 2025 Aponte order treats remediation as sufficient cure for first-instance hallucination.
- The Aponte matter establishes the chambers benchmark for first-offense pro se AI fabrications in E.D. Ark.: warning, not sanction. Compare Magee v. New Balance Athletics (Marshall, Dec. 2, 2025) for the same chambers, eight months later.
Sources
Primary sources
- The specific defective citations addressed by the show-cause orders are not extracted from this entry; the April 9, 2025 discharge order is brief and references the show-cause orders by ECF number rather than re-listing the underlying defective citations.
- The full text of show-cause Order ECF 24 was not retrievable from the storage.courtlistener.com cache during this verification pass; the predicate AI-conduct findings live in that order, which would be the deepest primary source.
- Whether the case is in the Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases Database is not confirmed; the entry was not surfaced in the Charlotin tracker via direct caption search during this verification pass.