Published opinion, 12 September 2025 · source · PDF · 32 pages
In short, this is in most respects a straightforward appeal that, under normal circumstances, would not warrant publication. What sets this appeal apart—and the reason we have elected to publish this opinion—is that nearly all of the legal quotations in plaintiff’s opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff’s reply brief, are fabricated. That is, the quotes plaintiff attributes to published cases do not appear in those cases or anywhere else.
That is, the quotes plaintiff attributes to published cases do not appear in those cases or anywhere else. Further, many of the cases plaintiff cites do not discuss the topics for which they are cited, and a few of the cases do not exist at all. These fabricated legal authorities were created by generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools that plaintiff’s counsel used to draft his appellate briefs.
These fabricated legal authorities were created by generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools that plaintiff’s counsel used to draft his appellate briefs. The AI tools created fake legal authority—sometimes referred to as AI “hallucinations”—that were undetected by plaintiff’s counsel because he did not read the cases the AI tools cited. Although the generation of fake legal authority by AI sources has been widely commented on by federal and out-of- state courts and reported by many media sources, no California court has addressed this issue.
7.) 9 DISCUSSION I. Plaintiff’s counsel’s reliance on fabricated legal authority. We begin by noting that nearly all of the quotations in plaintiff’s opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff’s reply brief, have been fabricated.
That is, as noted above, although most of the cases to which the quotes are attributed exist, the quotes do not. Further, many of the cases plaintiff cites do not support the propositions for which they are cited or discuss other matters entirely, and a few of the cases do not exist at all. To give just a few examples: Plaintiff asserts: “In Schimmel v.
2020), where sanctions were imposed for similar baseless claims of personal hardship to delay proceedings, Mr. Yadegari’s actions warranted sanctions under California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5 for making false statements to obtain an improper advantage.” Goldstine appears to be a fabricated case. And, plaintiff asserts: “The California Court of Appeal in Heckert v.
MacDonald, 208 Cal.App.3d 832, 837 (1989), emphasized that sanctions should be imposed where a party uses procedural rules to gain an unfair advantage by engaging in ‘frivolous litigation tactics.’ ” The words “frivolous,” “unfair,” and “tactics” do not appear in Heckert, which concerns the appellants’ claim that the trial court erred by refusing to order their real estate broker to pay their attorney fees as damages. In total, appellant’s opening brief contains 23 case quotations, 21 of which are fabrications. Appellant’s reply brief contains many more fabricated quotations.
And, both briefs are 11 peppered with inaccurate citations that do not support the propositions for which they are cited. The extensive reliance on nonexistent legal authority would justify striking appellant’s opening brief or dismissing the appeal. (See, e.g., In re Marriage of Deal (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 71, 77–81 [dismissing frivolous appeal]; Huang v.