Which source supports this Bacurin v. Bacurin 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.

HomeCasesBacurin v. Bacurin

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

Bacurin v. Bacurin

California SC · Jan 13, 2026

CA / state Editorial impact: low fake citations fabricated quotes misrepresented authority contract None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified that the defendant's filings included fabricated case law, non-existent citations, and misattributed quotations, which the court attributed to the likely use of AI tools by counsel. Although the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on other grounds, it formally recorded these AI-related errors in the official trial order.

Why the court cared: False Quotes: Case Law | Defendant quoted language attributed to a cited case that does not appear in that opinion; court observed the quoted language was absent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited a non-existent case and incorrect citation information; court noted the cited case/year did not exist as presented. || Misrepresented: Other | Editor’s Note and court observed multiple unverified citations in filings likely generated by AI tools used by a party or counsel; links unavailable.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in California SC, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In a summary judgment proceeding, the Superior Court of California observed that the defendant's filings contained multiple unverified citations, fabricated case law, and misattributed quotations. The court explicitly noted that these errors were likely generated by AI tools used by counsel. Specifically, the defendant cited a non-existent case and provided a quote attributed to a 1981 insurance case that did not appear in the actual opinion. While the court ultimately granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis of judicial estoppel regarding the plaintiff's bankruptcy filings, it formally documented the presence of AI-generated hallucinations in the defendant's submissions, emphasizing that these citations were not attributable to the court and were unverified.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in California SC, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtCalifornia SC

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJan 13, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeThe court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on judicial estoppel, while simultaneously documenting the defendant's use of AI-generated hallucinations in his filings.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court noted citations were likely generated by AI tools.

Procedural posture

Trial court order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment following a hearing on January 13, 2026.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

False Quotes: Case Law | Defendant quoted language attributed to a cited case that does not appear in that opinion; court observed the quoted language was absent.
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited a non-existent case and incorrect citation information; court noted the cited case/year did not exist as presented.
Misrepresented: Other | Editor’s Note and court observed multiple unverified citations in filings likely generated by AI tools used by a party or counsel; links unavailable.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Bacurin v. Bacurin?: The court identified that the defendant's filings included fabricated case law, non-existent citations, and misattributed quotations, which the court attributed to the likely use of AI tools by counsel. Although the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on other grounds, it formally recorded these AI-related errors in the official trial order.
Why does Bacurin v. Bacurin matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in California SC, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Bacurin v. Bacurin?: 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 Bacurin v. Bacurin 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.

Greenberg v. First Bank, Inc.California SC · Feb 17, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Lin v. LealCalifornia SC · Oct 23, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Mareiorozyan v. Automobili Lamborghini America, LLCCalifornia SC · Nov 19, 2025same court · fake citations + contract Roman v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia SC · Aug 27, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Song Dow Lee, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, et al.C.D. California · May 7, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes Estate of Khallid Muhammad et al v. Tupac Shakur Estate et alC.D. California · Feb 26, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open California SC profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology