HomeCasesQuinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC

CA California (1d) · Jun 11, 2026

CA / stateEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritybar referral

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition repeatedly relied on two cited cases that the court determined do not exist (non‑existent citations). Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Bar referral.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanction; Bar referral; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction; Bar referral in CA California (1d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition repeatedly relied on two cited cases that the court determined do not exist (non‑existent citations). Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Bar referral.

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction; Bar referral in CA California (1d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA California (1d)

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJun 11, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary Sanction; Bar referral

Known amount$6,000

Professional sanctionYes

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Monetary Sanction; Bar referral

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition repeatedly relied on two cited cases that the court determined do not exist (non‑existent citations).
False Quotes: Case Law | The brief contained no fewer than eight quotations purportedly from California cases that the court found were fabricated and do not appear in the cited opinions.
Misrepresented: Case Law | The opposition seriously misrepresented the holdings of multiple cases, stating propositions 'the exact inverse' of the true holdings.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC?: Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition repeatedly relied on two cited cases that the court determined do not exist (non‑existent citations). Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Bar referral.
Why does Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction; Bar referral in CA California (1d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC?: 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 Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC 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.

Peiman Shayan v. Ebby ShakibCA California · Dec 1, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes Zand v. SukumarCA California (1d) · Apr 14, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate Patterson v. Nuvision Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jul 2, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jun 23, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes Samuel K. v. Winsley FociaCA California · Feb 26, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes L.A. Housing Outreach, LLC v. MedoffCA California · Dec 17, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition repeatedly relied on two cited cases that the court determined do not exist (non‑existent citations). Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Bar referral.

Operational lesson

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA California (1d)

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJun 11, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary Sanction; Bar referral

Known amount$6,000

Professional sanctionYes

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition repeatedly relied on two cited cases that the court determined do not exist (non‑existent citations).

False Quotes: Case Law | The brief contained no fewer than eight quotations purportedly from California cases that the court found were fabricated and do not appear in the cited opinions.

Misrepresented: Case Law | The opposition seriously misrepresented the holdings of multiple cases, stating propositions 'the exact inverse' of the true holdings.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC?

Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition repeatedly relied on two cited cases that the court determined do not exist (non‑existent citations). Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Bar referral.

Why does Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC?

Which source supports this Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC 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.