Grant v. City of Long Beach
9th Cir. CA · Mar 22, 2024
What happened in this matter?
The Ninth Circuit struck the appellants' opening brief and dismissed the appeal because the brief contained fabricated case citations and materially misrepresented the holdings of numerous cited authorities, violating Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A).
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the brief failed to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A), which requires arguments to be supported by accurate citations and coherent explanations. The panel determined that the magnitude of fabricated and misrepresented cases rendered the brief unusable for appellate review.
- Why it matters now
- A Ninth Circuit published opinion striking your brief ends appellate careers — second-attorney verification is non-negotiable before filing.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellants claimed Hydrick examined a parent's false imprisonment claim over a child's unlawful removal; court notes Hydrick addresses SVP detainees' conditions of confinement and contains no 'parent'/'child' language. Outcome: Striking of Brief + Dismissal of Appeal.
AI Use
The appellants’ lawyer submitted an opening brief riddled with hallucinated cases and mischaracterizations. The court did not directly investigate the technological origin but cited the systematic errors as consistent with known AI-generated hallucination patterns.
Hallucination Details
Two cited cases were completely nonexistent. Additionally, a dozen cited decisions were badly misrepresented, e.g., Hydrick v. Hunter and Wall v. County of Orange were cited for parent–child removal claims when they had nothing to do with such issues.
Ruling/Sanction
The Ninth Circuit struck the appellants' opening brief under Circuit Rule 28–1 and dismissed the appeal. The panel emphasized that fabricated citations and grotesque misrepresentations violate Rule 28(a)(8)(A) requirements for arguments with coherent citation support.
A Ninth Circuit published opinion striking your brief ends appellate careers — second-attorney verification is non-negotiable before filing.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The opinion does not identify a specific tool.
Appellate review of a district court summary judgment; the Ninth Circuit struck the opening brief and dismissed the appeal.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
15 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellants claimed Hydrick examined a parent's false imprisonment claim over a child's unlawful removal; court notes Hydrick addresses SVP detainees' conditions of confinement and contains no 'parent'/'child' language.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellants claimed Wall addressed IIED against police for unlawfully removing a child; court explains Wall concerns a dentist's excessive force/false arrest/false imprisonment after an auto shop altercation, with no 'parent'/'child' language.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent case; court could not locate it.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent case; court could not locate it.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court states appellants misrepresented the facts and holdings of Smith v. City of Salem.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court states appellants misrepresented the facts and holdings of Yvonne L. v. N.M. Dep’t of Human Services.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court states appellants misrepresented the facts and holdings of Smith v. City of Fontana.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court states appellants misrepresented the facts and holdings of Wilkins v. City of Oakland.
Show 7 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court states appellants misrepresented the facts and holdings of Harris v. Roderick.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court states appellants misrepresented the facts and holdings of Mattos v. Agarano.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court states appellants misrepresented the facts and holdings of Henderson v. City of Simi Valley.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court states appellants misrepresented the facts and holdings of Johnson v. City of Seattle.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court states appellants misrepresented the facts and holdings of Brooks v. City of Seattle.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court states appellants misrepresented the facts and holdings of Devereaux v. Perez.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court states appellants misrepresented the facts and holdings of Wallis v. Spencer.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Grant v. City of Long Beach?
- The Ninth Circuit struck the appellants' opening brief and dismissed the appeal because the brief contained fabricated case citations and materially misrepresented the holdings of numerous cited authorities, violating Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A).
- Why does Grant v. City of Long Beach matter for legal AI risk?
- A Ninth Circuit published opinion striking your brief ends appellate careers — second-attorney verification is non-negotiable before filing.
- What does the public record establish about Grant v. City of Long Beach?
- 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 Grant v. City of Long Beach 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.