Jane Doe v. Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.
N.D. California · Nov 25, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- N.D. California
- Record ID
- jane-doe-v-taro-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-2025-11-25
- Observed outcome
- The court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring the plaintiff to explain the origin of the cited cases by December 12, 2025, while explicitly declining to impose sanctions.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring a pro se litigant to explain the origin of two nonexistent case citations included in a motion. The court clarified that while AI usage is permitted, litigants bear personal responsibility for verifying the accuracy of all research, noting that citing fabricated cases exceeds acceptable error margins.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Girafa.com, Inc. v. Alexa Internet, Inc., which the court was unable to locate and appears nonexistent; court ordered plaintiff to explain its origin. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Delacruz v. State Bar of Cal., 2021 WL 326974, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2021), which the court could not locate and appears nonexistent; court ordered explanation.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. California, with the listed outcome: Show Cause Order.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Other
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence tools
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order to Show Cause issued by the court following a Motion to Strike.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court references the use of generative artificial intelligence tools.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.