HomeCasesIn re Lusine Hakhverdyan

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

In re Lusine Hakhverdyan

C.D. California (Bankruptcy) · Mar 3, 2026

CA / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationspublished opinionbankruptcytrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed Debtor cited 'Whittaker v. Otto, 2014 WL 37845 (9th Cir.)' which does not correspond to the authority described; the citation leads to an unrelated case (Harmer) and is inaccurate/nonexistent as cited.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed Debtor cited 'Whittaker v. Otto, 2014 WL 37845 (9th Cir.)' which does not correspond to the authority described; the citation leads to an unrelated case (Harmer) and is inaccurate/nonexistent as cited. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed Debtor cited 'In re Chionis, 531 B.R. 52' which is incorrect; Chionis is not at that reporter citation and is an unpublished BAP decision (In re Chionis, 2013 WL 6840485 (9th Cir. BAP Dec. 27, 2013)).
Why it matters now: This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in C.D. California (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in C.D. California (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtC.D. California (Bankruptcy)

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMar 3, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSee source

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

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed Debtor cited 'Whittaker v. Otto, 2014 WL 37845 (9th Cir.)' which does not correspond to the authority described; the citation leads to an unrelated case (Harmer) and is inaccurate/nonexistent as cited.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed Debtor cited 'In re Chionis, 531 B.R. 52' which is incorrect; Chionis is not at that reporter citation and is an unpublished BAP decision (In re Chionis, 2013 WL 6840485 (9th Cir. BAP Dec. 27, 2013)).

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re Lusine Hakhverdyan?: Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed Debtor cited 'Whittaker v. Otto, 2014 WL 37845 (9th Cir.)' which does not correspond to the authority described; the citation leads to an unrelated case (Harmer) and is inaccurate/nonexistent as cited.
Why does In re Lusine Hakhverdyan matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in C.D. California (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about In re Lusine Hakhverdyan?: 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 In re Lusine Hakhverdyan 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.

Shaw v. City of Portola, et al.E.D. California · Apr 14, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + published opinion Teniah Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, et al.E.D. California · Sep 9, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + published opinion In re: Nupeutics Natural, Inc.; Gladstone v. PeatrossS.D. California · Dec 5, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + bankruptcy In re Rosslyn2016, LLC, et al.S.D. Texas (Bankruptcy) · Jul 14, 2026fake citations + published opinion Pedro Paulo Mansur Pagano Sampaio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.C.D. California · Jul 2, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trial Adrienne Hankins v. Dentons US LLP, et al.N.D. California · Jun 22, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trial

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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in C.D. California (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtC.D. California (Bankruptcy)

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMar 3, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed Debtor cited 'In re Chionis, 531 B.R. 52' which is incorrect; Chionis is not at that reporter citation and is an unpublished BAP decision (In re Chionis, 2013 WL 6840485 (9th Cir. BAP Dec. 27, 2013)).

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re Lusine Hakhverdyan?

Why does In re Lusine Hakhverdyan matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in C.D. California (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

What does the public record establish about In re Lusine Hakhverdyan?

Which source supports this In re Lusine Hakhverdyan 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.