Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Daniel James Cummins v. Moises Becerra
E.D. California · Feb 9, 2026
CA / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationshabeastrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Vuong' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Vuong' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Arellano' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Calderon' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Pham' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous. || Fabricated: Case Law | The motion and reply contain numerous other citations that either do not exist or do not support the propositions for which they were offered; the court found these bear the hallmarks of AI-generated 'hallucinated' cases.
- Why it matters now
- Filing an errata does not cure a brief full of hallucinations; courts still issue OSCs on the underlying AI misuse.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Vuong' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
Operational lesson
Filing an errata does not cure a brief full of hallucinations; courts still issue OSCs on the underlying AI misuse.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateFeb 9, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeOrder to Show Cause
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Order to Show Cause
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Vuong' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Arellano' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Calderon' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Pham' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The motion and reply contain numerous other citations that either do not exist or do not support the propositions for which they were offered; the court found these bear the hallmarks of AI-generated 'hallucinated' cases.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Daniel James Cummins v. Moises Becerra?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Vuong' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
- Why does Daniel James Cummins v. Moises Becerra matter for legal AI risk?
- Filing an errata does not cure a brief full of hallucinations; courts still issue OSCs on the underlying AI misuse.
- What does the public record establish about Daniel James Cummins v. Moises Becerra?
- 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 Daniel James Cummins v. Moises Becerra 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.