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 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Mojtabavi v. Blinken
C.D. California · Dec 12, 2024
CA / federalEditorial impact: career endingpro setrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In Mojtabavi v. Blinken, a pro se plaintiff's opposition contained citations that did not match the cited case names, including several authorities that produced no result and others that pointed to unrelated cases. The Central District of California had already warned that text-generative AI such as ChatGPT could not justify fake citations. After the errors continued, it dismissed the action with prejudice.
- Why the court cared
- The linked record identifies pro se and trial and records Case dismissed with prejudice. This page does not infer judicial reasoning beyond the source.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and trial involving Unidentified with Case dismissed with prejudice in C.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
In Mojtabavi v. Blinken, a pro se plaintiff's opposition contained citations that did not match the cited case names, including several authorities that produced no result and others that pointed to unrelated cases. The Central District of California had already warned that text-generative AI such as ChatGPT could not justify fake citations. After the errors continued, it dismissed the action with prejudice.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and trial involving Unidentified with Case dismissed with prejudice in C.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtC.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateDec 12, 2024
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeCase dismissed with prejudice
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Case dismissed with prejudice
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Mojtabavi v. Blinken?
- In Mojtabavi v. Blinken, a pro se plaintiff's opposition contained citations that did not match the cited case names, including several authorities that produced no result and others that pointed to unrelated cases. The Central District of California had already warned that text-generative AI such as ChatGPT could not justify fake citations. After the errors continued, it dismissed the action with prejudice.
- Why does Mojtabavi v. Blinken matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and trial involving Unidentified with Case dismissed with prejudice in C.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Mojtabavi v. Blinken?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Mojtabavi v. Blinken summary?
- The recorded source is ropesgray.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.