Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 16, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesFa’alagilagi Meni-Siliga v. A’s Contractor, Inc., et al.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Fa’alagilagi Meni-Siliga v. A’s Contractor, Inc., et al.

Los Angeles SC, California · Aug 11, 2026

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited in State Farm's MIL No. 1; later admitted by counsel to be a non-existent, AI-generated case citation. Defense counsel (State Farm) admitted that use of the AI tool Irys produced multiple non-existent case citations across its motions in limine and that some quotations were not attributable to the cited authorities. Opposing counsel discovered the issues, informed the court, and defense counsel investigated, identified seven fabricated case citations and several misattributed/false quotes, apologized, and filed redlined corrections. No sanctions or penalties are recorded in the declaration.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies fake citations and fabricated quotes and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Los Angeles SC, California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited in State Farm's MIL No. 1; later admitted by counsel to be a non-existent, AI-generated case citation. Defense counsel (State Farm) admitted that use of the AI tool Irys produced multiple non-existent case citations across its motions in limine and that some quotations were not attributable to the cited authorities. Opposing counsel discovered the issues, informed the court, and defense counsel investigated, identified seven fabricated case citations and several misattributed/false quotes, apologized, and filed redlined corrections. No sanctions or penalties are recorded in the declaration.

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Los Angeles SC, California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtLos Angeles SC, California
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateAug 11, 2026
IR
AI toolIrys
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

Irys is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited in State Farm's MIL No. 1; later admitted by counsel to be a non-existent, AI-generated case citation.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited in State Farm's MIL No. 1; identified as a non-existent citation after investigation.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited in State Farm's MIL No. 1; admitted by counsel to be fabricated.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited in State Farm's MIL No. 1; identified as a non-existent citation in counsel's review.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited in State Farm's MIL No. 3; found by counsel to be a non-existent AI-generated citation.
  6. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited in State Farm's MIL No. 3; admitted by counsel to be non-existent after verification.
  7. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited in State Farm's MIL No. 5; counsel's investigation determined the citation did not exist.
  8. False Quotes: Case Law | State Farm attributed two direct quotations to Rattan that are not direct quotes from that decision; counsel notes Rattan's actual holding about regulations not creating a private right of action.
Show 2 additional discrepancies
  1. Misrepresented: Case Law | The memorandum misstated the case title of Wesson v. Staples twice; counsel clarifies Wesson exists but the title was mis-stated in the brief.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Two quotations were erroneously attributed as direct quotes to Nickerson though the declaration notes the Nickerson text does not contain those exact quoted passages.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Fa’alagilagi Meni-Siliga v. A’s Contractor, Inc., et al.?
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited in State Farm's MIL No. 1; later admitted by counsel to be a non-existent, AI-generated case citation. Defense counsel (State Farm) admitted that use of the AI tool Irys produced multiple non-existent case citations across its motions in limine and that some quotations were not attributable to the cited authorities. Opposing counsel discovered the issues, informed the court, and defense counsel investigated, identified seven fabricated case citations and several misattributed/false quotes, apologized, and filed redlined corrections. No sanctions or penalties are recorded in the declaration.
Why does Fa’alagilagi Meni-Siliga v. A’s Contractor, Inc., et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Los Angeles SC, California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Fa’alagilagi Meni-Siliga v. A’s Contractor, Inc., et al.?
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 Fa’alagilagi Meni-Siliga v. A’s Contractor, Inc., et al. 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.