Bacurin v. Bacurin
California SC · Jan 13, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- California SC
- Record ID
- bacurin-v-bacurin-2026-01-13
- Observed outcome
- The 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 monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in California SC, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Trial court order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment following a hearing on January 13, 2026.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court noted citations were likely generated by AI tools.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.