Minjie Zheng v. ICANN
C.D. California · Dec 23, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- C.D. California
- Record ID
- minjie-zheng-v-icann-2025-12-23
- Observed outcome
- The Court granted the defendant's motion for attorney's fees, imposing a monetary sanction of $66,129.38 against the plaintiff.
- Known monetary consequence
- $66,129
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in C.D. California, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $66,129
- Procedural posture
- Order granting in part Defendant Verisign, Inc.'s motion for attorney's fees following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Court identified citations as falsely generated by AI.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.
- Escalate and correct a suspect filing promptly, with a documented response.