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 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Kessler v. City of Atwater
E.D. California · Jul 11, 2025
CA / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycivil rights
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: Gonzalez v. County of Los Angeles; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth. Outcome: Order to show cause issued for potential sanctions.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Order to show cause issued for potential sanctions; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Pull and read every cited case before filing; OSCs follow when courts find six fabricated cases and multiple false quotes in one brief.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: Gonzalez v. County of Los Angeles; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth. Outcome: Order to show cause issued for potential sanctions.
Operational lesson
Pull and read every cited case before filing; OSCs follow when courts find six fabricated cases and multiple false quotes in one brief.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJul 11, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeOrder to show cause issued for potential sanctions
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Order to show cause issued for potential sanctions
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
18 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: Gonzalez v. County of Los Angeles; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: McGill v. City of Redding; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: Ramos v. County of Madera; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: Yaka v. City of San Jose; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: Simmons v. City of Sacramento; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: Kohn v. Kohn; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Fabricated quotation attributed to Espindola; court found the quoted language does not appear and the phrase "place of business" is absent.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Fabricated quotation attributed to Harrell; court found the quote does not appear and the word "arbiters" is not used in the opinion.
Show 10 additional discrepancies
- False Quotes: Case Law | Fabricated quotation attributed to City of Montebello v. Vasquez; court found the quoted language does not exist and the term "tortious" is not used.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Fabricated quotation attributed to Navellier; court noted the language does not appear and the case in fact holds the opposite regarding anti-SLAPP.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Caldwell as supporting liability for intentional torts like defamation/fraud; court noted Caldwell does not address those torts and instead concerns FEHA immunity.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Turner as eliminating Government Claims Act filing for defamation/fraud; court explained Turner involved premises liability from a shooting and did not address that proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Cameron as stating government employees are not immune from intentional torts; court said Cameron is limited to design immunity/duty to warn and noted the brief’s citation was incorrect (correct: 7 Cal.3d 318).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Cornell to claim no § 820.2 immunity when acting with malice, fraud, or oppression; court noted Cornell at cited pages discusses Bane Act and elsewhere false arrest immunity, not that proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Thayer as holding fraudulent conduct is never protected under anti-SLAPP; court said Thayer did not reach or speak to that issue.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim to claim defamation is not insulated by anti-SLAPP; court said it merely observed many SLAPPs involve defamation and did not issue that holding.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Kashian to assert fraud and breach of contract are inherently unlawful and not protected speech; court said Kashian did not so hold and page 905 defines SLAPP rather than excluding contract claims.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Hagberg to argue alleged obstructive and defamatory conduct falls outside protected petitioning/speech; court said Hagberg addressed Civil Code § 47(b) privilege for reports to police, not the asserted proposition.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Kessler v. City of Atwater?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: Gonzalez v. County of Los Angeles; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth. Outcome: Order to show cause issued for potential sanctions.
- Why does Kessler v. City of Atwater matter for legal AI risk?
- Pull and read every cited case before filing; OSCs follow when courts find six fabricated cases and multiple false quotes in one brief.
- What does the public record establish about Kessler v. City of Atwater?
- 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 Kessler v. City of Atwater 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.