Kimberly A. Graves v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company
E.D. California · Jul 24, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008) for a statute-of-limitations/continuing-violation proposition; court noted the cited opinion exists but does not discuss the statute-of-limitations or continuing-violation issues relied upon, i.e., a mischaracterization of precedent. Outcome: Admonishment & Warning.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Admonishment & Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Admonishment & Warning in E.D. California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008) for a statute-of-limitations/continuing-violation proposition; court noted the cited opinion exists but does not discuss the statute-of-limitations or continuing-violation issues relied upon, i.e., a mischaracterization of precedent. Outcome: Admonishment & Warning.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Admonishment & Warning in E.D. California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Admonishment & Warning
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008) for a statute-of-limitations/continuing-violation proposition; court noted the cited opinion exists but does not discuss the statute-of-limitations or continuing-violation issues relied upon, i.e., a mischaracterization of precedent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Boling v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 105 Cal.App.3d 805 (1980); court found this case does not exist and flagged it as a fabricated citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Loving v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, 33 Cal.App.5th 444 (2019); court found this case does not exist and treated it as fabricated.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Kimberly A. Graves v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008) for a statute-of-limitations/continuing-violation proposition; court noted the cited opinion exists but does not discuss the statute-of-limitations or continuing-violation issues relied upon, i.e., a mischaracterization of precedent. Outcome: Admonishment & Warning.
- Why does Kimberly A. Graves v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Admonishment & Warning in E.D. California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Kimberly A. Graves v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company?
- 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 Kimberly A. Graves v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company 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.