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.
Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.
C.D. California · Oct 30, 2024
CA / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotescontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Motion to remand relied on a fabricated case; the Court flagged it as a significant error and part of the Rule 11 violation. Outcome: $2,500 Monetary Sanction + Mandatory Disclosure to California State Bar.
- Why the court cared
- Rule 11 requires attorneys to conduct a reasonable inquiry into both facts and law. Use of AI does not diminish this duty. Subjective good faith is irrelevant: violations occur even without intent to deceive. AI-generated filings must be reviewed with the same rigor as traditional submissions
- Why it matters now
- Mandatory State Bar notification is now standard — treat every AI-assisted filing as a bar-reportable event absent verification.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Motion to remand relied on a fabricated case; the Court flagged it as a significant error and part of the Rule 11 violation. Outcome: $2,500 Monetary Sanction + Mandatory Disclosure to California State Bar.
AI Use
Plaintiff’s counsel admitted using generative AI to draft a motion to remand without independently verifying the legal citations or the factual accuracy of quoted complaint allegations.
Hallucination Details
Cited a fabricated case (details of the specific case name not listed in the ruling). Included fabricated quotations from the complaint, suggesting nonexistent factual allegations.
Ruling/Sanction
The Court imposed a $2,500 sanction payable by December 30, 2024. Counsel was also required to notify the California State Bar of the sanction and file proof of notification and payment. The Court recognized mitigating factors (health issues, post-hoc corrective measures) but stressed the seriousness of the violations.
Key Judicial Reasoning
Rule 11 requires attorneys to conduct a reasonable inquiry into both facts and law. Use of AI does not diminish this duty. Subjective good faith is irrelevant: violations occur even without intent to deceive. AI-generated filings must be reviewed with the same rigor as traditional submissions.
Operational lesson
Mandatory State Bar notification is now standard — treat every AI-assisted filing as a bar-reportable event absent verification.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtC.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateOct 30, 2024
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
Outcome$2,500 Monetary Sanction + Mandatory Disclosure to California State Bar
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
$2,500 Monetary Sanction + Mandatory Disclosure to California State Bar
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Motion to remand relied on a fabricated case; the Court flagged it as a significant error and part of the Rule 11 violation.
- False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Motion used fabricated quotations purportedly from the complaint (nonexistent pleading allegations), which the Court treated as a Rule 11 breach.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Motion to remand relied on a fabricated case; the Court flagged it as a significant error and part of the Rule 11 violation. Outcome: $2,500 Monetary Sanction + Mandatory Disclosure to California State Bar.
- Why does Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- Mandatory State Bar notification is now standard — treat every AI-assisted filing as a bar-reportable event absent verification.
- What does the public record establish about Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, 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.