HomeCasesRoman v. County of Los Angeles

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

Roman v. County of Los Angeles

California SC · Aug 27, 2025

CA / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authoritytorttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found Plaintiff cited a non‑existent case titled 'Fairchild v. Park County (2000) 108 Cal.App.4th 1305'; court could not verify the case and noted it does not exist. 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 AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in California SC, 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 AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in California SC, 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.

CourtCalifornia SC

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateAug 27, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

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

Warning

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 | Court found Plaintiff cited a non‑existent case titled 'Fairchild v. Park County (2000) 108 Cal.App.4th 1305'; court could not verify the case and noted it does not exist.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found Plaintiff cited a non‑existent case titled 'Corgain v. Kmart Corp. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1547'; court could not verify the citation and noted no such reported opinion exists.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted Plaintiff cited existing cases (e.g., Krongos v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.; Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix) but the authorities do not stand for the propositions cited in the opposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Roman v. County of Los Angeles?: Fabricated: Case Law | Court found Plaintiff cited a non‑existent case titled 'Fairchild v. Park County (2000) 108 Cal.App.4th 1305'; court could not verify the case and noted it does not exist. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Roman v. County of Los Angeles matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in California SC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Roman v. County of Los Angeles?: 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 Roman v. County of Los Angeles 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.

Greenberg v. First Bank, Inc.California SC · Feb 17, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Bacurin v. BacurinCalifornia SC · Jan 13, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Sanchez v. Chedraui USA, Inc.California SC · Nov 6, 2025same court · fake citations + tort Lin v. LealCalifornia SC · Oct 23, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Mareiorozyan v. Automobili Lamborghini America, LLCCalifornia SC · Nov 19, 2025same court · fake citations + trial Wade v. Traincareconsult, IncSC California · Nov 7, 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

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found Plaintiff cited a non‑existent case titled 'Fairchild v. Park County (2000) 108 Cal.App.4th 1305'; court could not verify the case and noted it does not exist.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found Plaintiff cited a non‑existent case titled 'Corgain v. Kmart Corp. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1547'; court could not verify the citation and noted no such reported opinion exists.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted Plaintiff cited existing cases (e.g., Krongos v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.; Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix) but the authorities do not stand for the propositions cited in the opposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Roman v. County of Los Angeles?

Why does Roman v. County of Los Angeles matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Roman v. County of Los Angeles?

Which source supports this Roman v. County of Los Angeles 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.