O.K., LLC v. Melka
CA California (2d) · Apr 23, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA California (2d)
- Record ID
- o-k-llc-v-melka-2026-04-23
- Observed outcome
- The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and the appellant's motion to augment the record was denied.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court noted the respondent's allegation that the appellant used AI to generate fabricated or misrepresented case law but did not make a formal finding or impose sanctions regarding the use of AI. The judgment was affirmed based on the appellant's failure to provide an adequate record and the untimeliness of her motion to augment the record.
The court addressed the appellant's burden to provide an adequate record for appeal and the procedural requirements for motions to augment the record, noting the respondent's claims regarding AI-generated citations without ruling on their validity.
This case illustrates how courts may acknowledge allegations of AI-generated hallucinations in briefing while resolving the underlying dispute on independent procedural grounds. It highlights the importance of record adequacy and the risks associated with pro se reliance on unverified AI-generated legal research.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated: Case Law
- Misrepresented: Case Law
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from a default judgment entered by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County; the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
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 respondent's brief alleged the use of an artificial intelligence tool.
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.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- 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.