Simpson v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia · W.D. Va. · Virginia bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff filed mischaracterized citations, fabricated quotes, and a non-existent statute reflecting generative-AI output.
Consequence
No monetary sanction; Rule 11 warning that future fabrications could trigger striking, filing restrictions, fees, or dismissal.
Lesson
First-incident response in W.D. Va. (Yoon chambers) is warning-only; the operational gate is the second filing.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Simpson v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 5:24-cv-00094-JHY-JCH, ECF No. 150 (W.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2025) (Yoon, J.)
- Decided
- December 19, 2025
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Gavin Simpson, in a Fair Credit Reporting Act and related consumer-finance action against Portfolio Recovery Associates, filed a motion for summary judgment and other briefs that the court found contained mischaracterized case citations, fabricated quotations, and a non-existent statutory provision (15 U.S.C. § 1692cc) attributed to AI-style generative output. United States District Judge Jasmine H. Yoon found the defects sufficient to warrant warning rather than monetary sanctions on this first instance.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI (court referenced 'generative artificial intelligence' generally; no specific tool identified on the record)
What sanction did the court impose?
No monetary sanction. The court warned Simpson that any future filing fabricating or misrepresenting authorities could trigger a Rule 11 show cause order, with potential consequences including striking of filings, filing restrictions, monetary penalties, or dismissal of the action.
Why does Simpson v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC matter for law firms using AI?
Simpson is the second half of a Yoon-chambers cluster (paired with Suiter v. GM, Mar. 12, 2026): two W.D. Va. orders in three months from the same chambers, both warning pro se plaintiffs over AI-pattern citations without imposing monetary sanctions. The cluster is operationally useful because it telegraphs the chambers’ standard remediation: warning first, sanctions only on repeat conduct. The Simpson order also reaches a point Suiter does not: a fabricated statutory provision, not just fabricated case law, falls within the Rule 11 warning. For firms representing defendants on similar facts, the order is a clean template for moving to strike AI-pattern filings without overreaching toward fees on the first incident.
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.
- Defendants in Yoon-chambers cases facing AI-pattern filings should expect warning-only on the first instance and prepare a sanctions package keyed to the second.
- Monitor whether the same pro se litigant has prior AI-pattern warnings in any district when scoping a Rule 11 motion.