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 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Kuigoua v. Park
CA California · Nov 10, 2025
CA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytort
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Demers v. City of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.App.3d 519, 522 (1974)," which respondents' counsel could not locate and the court found to be a non-existent citation.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Demers v. City of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.App.3d 519, 522 (1974)," which respondents' counsel could not locate and the court found to be a non-existent citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant repeatedly relied on Ladd v. Dart Equipment Corp., 230 Cal.App.3d 1088, 1097–1098 (1991) for a proposition the case does not support; the court found the citation misapplied.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA California, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Demers v. City of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.App.3d 519, 522 (1974)," which respondents' counsel could not locate and the court found to be a non-existent citation.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA California, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA California
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateNov 10, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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 | Appellant cited "Demers v. City of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.App.3d 519, 522 (1974)," which respondents' counsel could not locate and the court found to be a non-existent citation.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant repeatedly relied on Ladd v. Dart Equipment Corp., 230 Cal.App.3d 1088, 1097–1098 (1991) for a proposition the case does not support; the court found the citation misapplied.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Kuigoua v. Park?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Demers v. City of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.App.3d 519, 522 (1974)," which respondents' counsel could not locate and the court found to be a non-existent citation.
- Why does Kuigoua v. Park matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA California, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about Kuigoua v. Park?
- 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 Kuigoua v. Park 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.