HomeCasesDel Biaggio v. Bansen

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Del Biaggio v. Bansen

CA California (4d) · Jul 10, 2026

CA / stateEditorial impact: mediumfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycontractappellate

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief misidentified and misstated Guinn (cited as 'Guinn v. Dotco, Inc., 27 Cal.App.4th 262') and described it as involving a contractual fee provision when it concerned statutory authority. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether quotations and pincites accurately matched the cited source. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanction; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction in CA California (4d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction in CA California (4d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA California (4d)

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJul 10, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary Sanction

Known amount$1,500

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Monetary Sanction

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.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief misidentified and misstated Guinn (cited as 'Guinn v. Dotco, Inc., 27 Cal.App.4th 262') and described it as involving a contractual fee provision when it concerned statutory authority.
False Quotes: Case Law | Opening brief attributed a definitive statement endorsing paralegal fee recovery to Gorman that does not appear in the opinion.
False Quotes: Case Law | Opening brief purported to quote PLCM with two specific passages endorsing paralegal fee recovery; court found no such language in PLCM and that PLCM did not address paralegal fees.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Del Biaggio v. Bansen?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief misidentified and misstated Guinn (cited as 'Guinn v. Dotco, Inc., 27 Cal.App.4th 262') and described it as involving a contractual fee provision when it concerned statutory authority. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Why does Del Biaggio v. Bansen matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction in CA California (4d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Del Biaggio v. Bansen?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Del Biaggio v. Bansen 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.

Patterson v. Nuvision Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jul 2, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jun 23, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Howell Management Services, LLC v. Vashisht-RotaCA California · Dec 15, 2025same jurisdiction · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Kingdom of Sweden v. Samantha Ashhadi SolimanCA California · Dec 1, 2025same jurisdiction · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Peiman Shayan v. Ebby ShakibCA California · Dec 1, 2025same jurisdiction · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority EFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al.CA California · Feb 18, 2026same jurisdiction · fabricated quotes + contract

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

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

False Quotes: Case Law | Opening brief attributed a definitive statement endorsing paralegal fee recovery to Gorman that does not appear in the opinion.

False Quotes: Case Law | Opening brief purported to quote PLCM with two specific passages endorsing paralegal fee recovery; court found no such language in PLCM and that PLCM did not address paralegal fees.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Del Biaggio v. Bansen?

Why does Del Biaggio v. Bansen matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Del Biaggio v. Bansen?

Which source supports this Del Biaggio v. Bansen 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.