Angelica E. Cruz et al. v. United States of America
C.D. California · Dec 16, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court issued an Order to Show Cause under Rule 11(b) after plaintiffs' counsel submitted a brief containing a non-existent case citation. Counsel admitted to signing the filing without verifying the citations, blaming outside counsel for the error. The court deemed this conduct unacceptable and required a written response within three days.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' opposition cited 'Kennedy v. United States, 2022 WL 17684317, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2022)'; Defendant and the Court were unable to locate any such case; counsel admitted not checking citations and attributed it to outside counsel; Court ordered show cause under Rule 11.
- Why it matters now
- Outsourcing a brief doesn't outsource Rule 11 — you own every citation outside counsel submits under your name.
Why this matter is tracked
In the matter of Cruz v. United States, the court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding potential Rule 11 sanctions after plaintiffs' counsel filed an opposition containing a fabricated case citation ('Kennedy v. United States'). During a hearing, counsel admitted to failing to verify the citations, attributing the error to unreachable outside counsel. The court found these explanations unsatisfactory, noting that counsel signed the brief without independent verification. Additionally, the court addressed the plaintiffs' failure to file a timely opposition under Local Rule 7-9 without seeking leave. The court ordered counsel to provide a written response within three days explaining why sanctions should not be imposed for the hallucinated citation and the procedural default.
Outsourcing a brief doesn't outsource Rule 11 — you own every citation outside counsel submits under your name.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The source does not name a specific tool, implying AI usage through the nature of the hallucination.
Order to Show Cause issued by the court on December 16, 2025, following a hearing on a motion to exclude expert testimony.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' opposition cited 'Kennedy v. United States, 2022 WL 17684317, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2022)'; Defendant and the Court were unable to locate any such case; counsel admitted not checking citations and attributed it to outside counsel; Court ordered show cause under Rule 11.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Angelica E. Cruz et al. v. United States of America?
- The court issued an Order to Show Cause under Rule 11(b) after plaintiffs' counsel submitted a brief containing a non-existent case citation. Counsel admitted to signing the filing without verifying the citations, blaming outside counsel for the error. The court deemed this conduct unacceptable and required a written response within three days.
- Why does Angelica E. Cruz et al. v. United States of America matter for legal AI risk?
- Outsourcing a brief doesn't outsource Rule 11 — you own every citation outside counsel submits under your name.
- What does the public record establish about Angelica E. Cruz et al. v. United States of America?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Angelica E. Cruz et al. v. United States of America summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.