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.
Marc Henri David v. George Chiala Farms, Inc.
N.D. California · Nov 7, 2025
CA / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityip
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel cited a nonexistent case 'Morgan v. State of California, 157 Cal. App. 4th 914, 922 (2007)'; the Court found no case of that name and noted the intended citation was Chamberlain v. Cocola Assocs., 958 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1992). Outcome: Admonishment. The Court identified multiple instances where counsel cited nonexistent cases and misquoted Cal. Civ. Code § 988(c). The Court admonished counsel, noted corrections in later briefing, and declined to credit the arguments based on the erroneous citations. No sanctions were imposed.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel cited a nonexistent case 'Morgan v. State of California, 157 Cal. App. 4th 914, 922 (2007)'; the Court found no case of that name and noted the intended citation was Chamberlain v. Cocola Assocs., 958 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1992). || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel for CDC cited a nonexistent authority 'Humphries v. Rice, 88 Cal. App. 4th 1413, 1424 (2001)'; the Court found the citation incorrect and noted counsel intended to cite Eddy v. Sharp, 199 Cal. App. 3d 858 (1988). || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff's counsel misquoted Cal. Civ. Code § 988(c), attributing language to the statute that it does not contain; the Court admonished counsel for the misquotation.
- Why it matters now
- Misquoting a statute is as dangerous as inventing a case — pull the code text directly, never paraphrase from AI output.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel cited a nonexistent case 'Morgan v. State of California, 157 Cal. App. 4th 914, 922 (2007)'; the Court found no case of that name and noted the intended citation was Chamberlain v. Cocola Assocs., 958 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1992). Outcome: Admonishment. The Court identified multiple instances where counsel cited nonexistent cases and misquoted Cal. Civ. Code § 988(c). The Court admonished counsel, noted corrections in later briefing, and declined to credit the arguments based on the erroneous citations. No sanctions were imposed.
Operational lesson
Misquoting a statute is as dangerous as inventing a case — pull the code text directly, never paraphrase from AI output.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtN.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateNov 7, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeAdmonishment
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
Admonishment
Correction behavior
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel cited a nonexistent case 'Morgan v. State of California, 157 Cal. App. 4th 914, 922 (2007)'; the Court found no case of that name and noted the intended citation was Chamberlain v. Cocola Assocs., 958 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1992).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel for CDC cited a nonexistent authority 'Humphries v. Rice, 88 Cal. App. 4th 1413, 1424 (2001)'; the Court found the citation incorrect and noted counsel intended to cite Eddy v. Sharp, 199 Cal. App. 3d 858 (1988).
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff's counsel misquoted Cal. Civ. Code § 988(c), attributing language to the statute that it does not contain; the Court admonished counsel for the misquotation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Marc Henri David v. George Chiala Farms, Inc.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel cited a nonexistent case 'Morgan v. State of California, 157 Cal. App. 4th 914, 922 (2007)'; the Court found no case of that name and noted the intended citation was Chamberlain v. Cocola Assocs., 958 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1992). Outcome: Admonishment. The Court identified multiple instances where counsel cited nonexistent cases and misquoted Cal. Civ. Code § 988(c). The Court admonished counsel, noted corrections in later briefing, and declined to credit the arguments based on the erroneous citations. No sanctions were imposed.
- Why does Marc Henri David v. George Chiala Farms, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- Misquoting a statute is as dangerous as inventing a case — pull the code text directly, never paraphrase from AI output.
- What does the public record establish about Marc Henri David v. George Chiala Farms, Inc.?
- 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 Marc Henri David v. George Chiala Farms, Inc. 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.