HomeCasesRobert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, Inc.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, Inc.

C.D. California · Apr 17, 2026

CA / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authorityemploymenttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's filing included a completely hallucinated (fabricated) case citation generated by AI; court noted existence of a fabricated cite but the specific citation string was not provided in the opinion. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving Unidentified with Warning in C.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving Unidentified with Warning in C.D. California, 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.

CourtC.D. California

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateApr 17, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeWarning

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

Warning

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 | Defendant's filing included a completely hallucinated (fabricated) case citation generated by AI; court noted existence of a fabricated cite but the specific citation string was not provided in the opinion.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Several authorities cited by Defendant (from AI assistance) did not support the propositions for which they were cited; court found these citations were misrepresentations resulting from unverified AI use.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, Inc.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's filing included a completely hallucinated (fabricated) case citation generated by AI; court noted existence of a fabricated cite but the specific citation string was not provided in the opinion. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving Unidentified with Warning in C.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, 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 Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, 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.

Yi-Sheng Fang, et al. v. Hechalou US LLC, et al.C.D. California · Sep 12, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Pedro Paulo Mansur Pagano Sampaio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.C.D. California · Jul 2, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Song Dow Lee, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, et al.C.D. California · May 7, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Estate of Khallid Muhammad et al v. Tupac Shakur Estate et alC.D. California · Feb 26, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority N.Z. et al. v. Fenix International Ltd. et al. (OnlyFans)C.D. California · Sep 12, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Twist It Up, Inc. v. Annie International, Inc.C.D. California · Jun 26, 2025same court · 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

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Several authorities cited by Defendant (from AI assistance) did not support the propositions for which they were cited; court found these citations were misrepresentations resulting from unverified AI use.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, Inc.?

Why does Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, Inc.?

Which source supports this Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, 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.