Rotibi v. RealPage, Inc.
CA Maryland · Sep 9, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Maryland
- Record ID
- rotibi-v-realpage-inc-2025-09-09
- Observed outcome
- The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the denial of the motion to vacate the arbitration award.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The appellant alleged the trial court relied on a non-existent appellate decision. The appellate court did not adjudicate the existence of the citation, ruling instead that any such error would be harmless because the appellate court reviews the denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award de novo, rendering the trial court's specific reasoning secondary to the appellate court's independent legal analysis.
The appellate court reasoned that because its review of the denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award is de novo, any potential error by the trial court in its reasoning or citation of authority is rendered harmless, as the appellate court provides no deference to the trial court's conclusions.
This case highlights the procedural threshold for challenging judicial reasoning. It demonstrates that appellate courts may bypass allegations of 'hallucinated' or non-existent citations if the standard of review allows for de novo correction of the underlying legal conclusion.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Appellate
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to the Appellate Court of Maryland, affirming the denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award.
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
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The record concerns a public allegation and does not establish an adjudicated finding. 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).
Allegation status: no adjudicated finding is represented by this brief.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify all case citations in trial court orders and opinions independently of the court's provided text.
- Raise concerns regarding potentially fabricated citations at the earliest possible stage in the trial court to ensure a clear record.
- Assess whether the applicable standard of review (e.g., de novo vs. abuse of discretion) permits an appellate court to bypass errors in trial court reasoning.