Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez, et al. v. Gerard Van De Pol (1)
E.D. California · Dec 3, 2025
CA / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsemploymenttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation “Ho v. Ernst & Young LLP, 2011 WL 7106622, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011)” to be incorrect or not supporting the asserted proposition; flagged as possibly fictitious or mis-cited. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation “Ho v. Ernst & Young LLP, 2011 WL 7106622, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011)” to be incorrect or not supporting the asserted proposition; flagged as possibly fictitious or mis-cited. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed “Lobaton v. City of San Diego, No. 3:15-cv-1416-GPC-DHB, *2020 WL 7334512, at 4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2020)” appeared to be mis-cited or not a real/accurate authority for the proposition offered. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified “Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00927-DAD-EPG, *2020 WL 4437167, at 3 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2020)” as having an incorrect citation or not accurately reflecting an order filed in that case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted “Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, Inc., 2020 WL 4037167, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2020)” was cited incorrectly or does not match the record in that matter. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation “Chavez v. SolarCity Corp., No. 13-cv-01797-JST, *2015 WL 1520065, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2015)” to be incorrect or not supporting the explanatory phrase attributed to it.
- Why it matters now
- Pincite and parenthetical accuracy matter as much as case existence; require Westlaw-verified pin-check on every quoted proposition.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation “Ho v. Ernst & Young LLP, 2011 WL 7106622, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011)” to be incorrect or not supporting the asserted proposition; flagged as possibly fictitious or mis-cited. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
Pincite and parenthetical accuracy matter as much as case existence; require Westlaw-verified pin-check on every quoted proposition.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateDec 3, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeWarning
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
Warning
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation “Ho v. Ernst & Young LLP, 2011 WL 7106622, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011)” to be incorrect or not supporting the asserted proposition; flagged as possibly fictitious or mis-cited.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed “Lobaton v. City of San Diego, No. 3:15-cv-1416-GPC-DHB, *2020 WL 7334512, at 4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2020)” appeared to be mis-cited or not a real/accurate authority for the proposition offered.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified “Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00927-DAD-EPG, *2020 WL 4437167, at 3 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2020)” as having an incorrect citation or not accurately reflecting an order filed in that case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted “Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, Inc., 2020 WL 4037167, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2020)” was cited incorrectly or does not match the record in that matter.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation “Chavez v. SolarCity Corp., No. 13-cv-01797-JST, *2015 WL 1520065, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2015)” to be incorrect or not supporting the explanatory phrase attributed to it.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez, et al. v. Gerard Van De Pol (1)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation “Ho v. Ernst & Young LLP, 2011 WL 7106622, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011)” to be incorrect or not supporting the asserted proposition; flagged as possibly fictitious or mis-cited. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez, et al. v. Gerard Van De Pol (1) matter for legal AI risk?
- Pincite and parenthetical accuracy matter as much as case existence; require Westlaw-verified pin-check on every quoted proposition.
- What does the public record establish about Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez, et al. v. Gerard Van De Pol (1)?
- 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 Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez, et al. v. Gerard Van De Pol (1) 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.