Minjie Zheng v. ICANN
C.D. California · Dec 23, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Court sanctioned a pro se litigant $66,129.38 for bad faith conduct, specifically citing the repeated use of AI-generated, non-existent case law and fabricated quotations in court filings. The Court determined these actions unreasonably multiplied proceedings, justifying a monetary sanction under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the Court's inherent authority.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited dozens of cases the Court was unable to locate, including some falsely attributed to this Court; Court identified earlier inability to locate two such cases. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed language to Richter v. CC-Palo Alto, Inc. and Carlson v. Coca-Cola Co. that does not appear in those opinions. || False Quotes: Legal Norm | Plaintiff quoted language purportedly from California Code of Civil Procedure § 356 that bears no similarity to the actual statute. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition to the fee motion cited authorities that were entirely fabricated or did not support the propositions for which they were cited.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in C.D. California, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Why this matter is tracked
In Minjie Zheng v. ICANN, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California sanctioned a pro se plaintiff for bad faith litigation conduct, including the repeated submission of AI-generated filings. The Court found that the plaintiff cited dozens of non-existent cases, some falsely attributed to the Court, and included fabricated quotations from existing case law and statutes. Despite prior warnings, the plaintiff continued to submit filings containing these errors and re-raised previously rejected arguments. The Court awarded attorney's fees to the defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and its inherent authority. While the Court calculated reasonable fees at $132,258.75, it reduced the final sanction to $66,129.38 to account for the plaintiff's pro se status and ability to pay.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in C.D. California, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Court identified citations as falsely generated by AI.
Order granting in part Defendant Verisign, Inc.'s motion for attorney's fees following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited dozens of cases the Court was unable to locate, including some falsely attributed to this Court; Court identified earlier inability to locate two such cases.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed language to Richter v. CC-Palo Alto, Inc. and Carlson v. Coca-Cola Co. that does not appear in those opinions.
- False Quotes: Legal Norm | Plaintiff quoted language purportedly from California Code of Civil Procedure § 356 that bears no similarity to the actual statute.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition to the fee motion cited authorities that were entirely fabricated or did not support the propositions for which they were cited.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Minjie Zheng v. ICANN?
- The Court sanctioned a pro se litigant $66,129.38 for bad faith conduct, specifically citing the repeated use of AI-generated, non-existent case law and fabricated quotations in court filings. The Court determined these actions unreasonably multiplied proceedings, justifying a monetary sanction under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the Court's inherent authority.
- Why does Minjie Zheng v. ICANN matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in C.D. California, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
- What does the public record establish about Minjie Zheng v. ICANN?
- 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 Minjie Zheng v. ICANN 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.