Pena v. Wells Fargo Bank
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · S.D. Fla. · Florida bar guidance
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Pena v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 0:25-cv-62431 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2026) (Augustin-Birch, M.J.) (Report & Recommendation)
- Decided
- February 19, 2026
Summary
Juan del Pena and Martina Ruiz, proceeding pro se, brought a Fair Credit Reporting Act action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in the Southern District of Florida. Ruling on their renewed motion for a preliminary injunction, Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch found that they had cited Holden for a proposition about injunctive relief that the case does not contain, including a quotation to a page that does not exist in the opinion. The court wrote that the plaintiffs had likely obtained their analysis "from an unreliable source, such as artificial intelligence." It noted that it had already admonished the plaintiffs once for the same problem.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the court found the plaintiffs likely obtained a citation from 'an unreliable source, such as artificial intelligence'; no specific tool named)
What sanction did the court impose?
In a report and recommendation, the court recommended denying the renewed motion for a preliminary injunction. It imposed no sanction for the citation problem, but warned that it "should not have to warn Plaintiffs again," and that if they included further citations the court suspected were AI-generated, they would face sanctions. The warning was the plaintiffs' second on the same conduct.
Why does Pena v. Wells Fargo Bank matter for law firms using AI?
Pena v. Wells Fargo is a useful example of a court running out of patience without yet reaching for sanctions. The plaintiffs, proceeding pro se in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case, cited Holden for a point about injunctive relief, complete with a pin cite to a page that does not exist in the opinion. Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch traced the likely source to generative AI, and pointed to her own prior order: she had already admonished these plaintiffs once for the same thing.
The order does not sanction. It recommends denying the injunction motion on the merits and tells the plaintiffs the court “should not have to warn” them again. For a firm opposing a pro se litigant in S.D. Fla., the value of Pena is the second-warning posture. The first AI-citation incident usually buys an admonishment; the order shows what the record looks like heading into a third strike, where the court has now twice put the litigant on notice and framed the next occurrence as sanctionable.