Dukuray v. Experian Information Solutions
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · S.D.N.Y. · New York bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff cited three non-existent federal cases and a fictitious FCRA provision; did not deny defendants' ChatGPT suggestion.
Consequence
Formal warning from S.D.N.Y.; future fabrications carry striking, monetary penalties, or dismissal.
Lesson
Dukuray is the canonical S.D.N.Y. pro se warning order; courts cite it for the warning-first disposition rationale.
Verified May 7, 2026
- Citation
- Dukuray v. Experian Info. Sols., No. 1:23-cv-09043 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2024)
- Decided
- July 26, 2024
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Dukuray, opposing motions to dismiss in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case against Experian, filed a brief containing three fabricated federal case citations: a non-existent Seventh Circuit case, a fictitious FCRA statutory provision (the court inferred she meant 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)), and two non-existent Ninth Circuit cases. Each cited reporter citation actually corresponded to an unrelated decision. Defendants raised the issue in their reply, suggesting use of ChatGPT or a similar tool; plaintiff did not deny the accusation. The court acknowledged her pro se status and likely ignorance of AI risks, declined to impose sanctions for the first occurrence, and issued a formal warning that any future filings containing fabricated citations or quotations would result in sanctions including striking of filings, monetary penalties, or dismissal. The court cited Mata v. Avianca and Park v. Kim as establishing the principle that hallucinated case citations undermine judicial integrity.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (defendants suggested ChatGPT or similar; plaintiff did not deny)
What sanction did the court impose?
Formal warning issued; no monetary sanction or disciplinary referral. Court warned that future fabricated citations would result in sanctions including striking of filings, monetary penalties, or dismissal.
Why does Dukuray v. Experian Information Solutions matter for law firms using AI?
Dukuray v. Experian is a foundational S.D.N.Y. pro se AI warning order, cited across multiple subsequent S.D.N.Y. and Second Circuit sanctions orders as the canonical example of the warning-first disposition. The court’s analysis draws on Mata v. Avianca and Park v. Kim to articulate that hallucinated citations harm judicial integrity even when introduced by pro se filers, but calibrates the response to first-occurrence pro se solicitude with a forward looking sanctions menu (striking, monetary penalties, dismissal) keyed to future fabrications.
For firms with S.D.N.Y. consumer-finance and FCRA practices, three operational implications follow. First, Dukuray is the canonical citation when arguing that pro se opposition has crossed the line from negligent miscitation to sanctionable fabrication; the court’s articulation of the standard is quotable. Second, the case is also citable in defense of a pro se warning-only disposition when representing a pro se litigant facing a sanctions motion; the analysis explicitly weighs pro se solicitude. Third, prior Dukuray warnings against the same litigant are a useful predicate for moving directly to monetary sanctions on a subsequent filing, since the court has already articulated the prospective sanctions menu.
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.
- Dukuray is a frequently-cited S.D.N.Y. precedent for the pro se warning-first disposition; cite it directly when arguing for sanctions only on a recurrence rather than on first occurrence.
- FCRA matters in S.D.N.Y. are a recurring AI-hallucination context; pro se consumer-credit plaintiffs frequently cite fabricated statutory subsections of 15 U.S.C. § 1681 series. Verify each cited subsection against the United States Code before responding.
- The Dukuray warning includes a forward-looking sanctions menu (striking, monetary penalties, dismissal); when prior warnings exist against a pro se litigant, this menu supports the specific sanction requested on a subsequent filing.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- R&G's tracker dates this entry 2025-01-01 and lists Saratoga County Surrogate's Court Judge Schopf at https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/4jd/Schopf-Rules.pdf, with docket 1:24-cv-04232. None of this metadata matches the actual Dukuray v. Experian case. Charlotin's database and CourtListener confirm the actual case is in S.D.N.Y., docket 1:23-cv-09043, with the AI-warning order dated July 26, 2024. R&G's metadata for this entry is comprehensively wrong: wrong date, wrong court, wrong judge, wrong URL, wrong docket. The correct metadata is used here.
- Specific judge of the July 26, 2024 S.D.N.Y. order is not identified in Charlotin's database; not separately verified.
- Order text was not extracted verbatim during this verification pass; Charlotin's CSV synopsis is the source for the substantive narrative.