Samuel K. v. Winsley Focia
CA California · Feb 26, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA California
- Record ID
- samuel-k-v-winsley-focia-2026-02-26
- Observed outcome
- Appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to bear her own costs on appeal.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The California Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's case because her opening brief relied almost entirely on fabricated and inapposite legal authorities, which the court attributed to the use of generative AI. The court held that self-represented litigants are responsible for verifying all citations and authorities presented in their filings.
Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a nonexistent case 'Medical Board v. Superior Court (2022) 88 Cal.App.5th 459, 475' and attributed multiple due-process quotations to it; court found no such published case or quotations and labeled them AI 'hallucinations.' || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief quoted 'Admitting a transcript without the original recording is reversible error.' and cited People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 475; court found the quotation does not exist and Panah reached the opposite conclusion. || Fabricated: Other | The brief contained 12 quotations (11 fabricated) and numerous inaccurate or inapposite citations (some reporter citations corresponding to different criminal cases); court characterized the brief as 'peppered with inaccurate citations' and AI-generated fabrications.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA California, with the listed outcome: Appeal dismissed; appellant to bear her own costs on appeal..
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Published Opinion
- Family
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- generative artificial intelligence (AI) software
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from a domestic violence restraining order issued by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County; appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
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 court stated the brief appeared to be prepared using generative AI software.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.