Mirage v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
C.D. California · Jul 31, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- C.D. California
- Record ID
- mirage-v-costco-wholesale-corporation-2025-07-31
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the motion to remand and issued a formal admonishment to the plaintiff regarding the citation of non-existent authority and AI disclosure requirements.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court admonished the plaintiff for citing non-existent case law, noting a potential failure to comply with the court's Standing Order regarding AI disclosure. The court warned that future citations to non-existent authority would trigger an order to show cause regarding sanctions.
The court reasoned that the plaintiff's reliance on non-existent case law violated the court's Standing Order requiring disclosure and verification of AI-generated content, necessitating an admonishment to ensure future compliance with Rule 11 obligations.
This case illustrates the enforcement of local standing orders requiring the disclosure and verification of AI-generated legal research. It highlights the risk of judicial admonishment when counsel fails to verify the existence of cited authorities.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
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
The court noted the plaintiff cited non-existent cases and failed to comply with the Standing Order if AI was used.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.