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.

HomeCasesIn re Lusine Hakhverdyan

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

In re Lusine Hakhverdyan

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

CA / federal Editorial impact: low fake citations published opinion bankruptcy trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified that the debtor's filings contained fabricated or inaccurate case law citations. While the court explicitly noted these errors in its memorandum of decision, it did not issue a formal sanction or disciplinary finding against the party for the use of AI or inaccurate research, ultimately denying the debtor's motions on substantive legal grounds.

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Debtor cited 'In re Chionis, 531 B.R. 52' which is incorrect; Chionis is not at that reporter citation and is an unpublished BAP decision (In re Chionis, 2013 WL 6840485 (9th Cir. BAP Dec. 27, 2013)).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

In a bankruptcy proceeding, the debtor filed multiple motions seeking to vacate extension orders and sanction opposing counsel. The court denied the debtor's motions, finding that the debtor's counsel had implied authority to enter into procedural stipulations extending deadlines. During the proceedings, the court noted that the debtor's filings contained inaccurate or nonexistent case citations, specifically citing 'Whittaker v. Otto' and 'In re Chionis' with incorrect reporter information and descriptions. The court identified these as examples of inaccurate legal research but did not impose sanctions on the debtor or counsel for the citations themselves, focusing instead on the merits of the underlying motions to vacate orders.

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

Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtC.D. California (Bankruptcy)

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMar 3, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeThe court denied the debtor's motions to vacate extension orders, strike stipulations, and sanction opposing counsel.

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

Memorandum of Decision denying the debtor's motions to vacate extension orders, strike stipulations, and sanction opposing counsel.

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?: The court identified that the debtor's filings contained fabricated or inaccurate case law citations. While the court explicitly noted these errors in its memorandum of decision, it did not issue a formal sanction or disciplinary finding against the party for the use of AI or inaccurate research, ultimately denying the debtor's motions on substantive legal grounds.
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 Ali Jabbari v. Parviz Omidvar, et al.C.D. California · Aug 3, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trial Kimberly A. Graves v. Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyE.D. California · Jul 24, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trial In re Rosslyn2016, LLC, et al.S.D. Texas (Bankruptcy) · Jul 14, 2026fake citations + published opinion

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Aug 17, 2026; latest tracked decision Aug 13, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open C.D. California (Bankruptcy) profile Explore jurisdiction

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