Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
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.
Sebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (2)
N.D. California · Feb 4, 2026
CA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff (pro se) previously cited non-existent/fictitious cases in filings; VMware asserted those citations were likely AI-hallucinated and the Court warned against filing such fabricated case citations. Outcome: Required meet-and-confer for AI-use disputes.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff (pro se) previously cited non-existent/fictitious cases in filings; VMware asserted those citations were likely AI-hallucinated and the Court warned against filing such fabricated case citations.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. California, with the listed outcome: Required meet-and-confer for AI-use disputes.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff (pro se) previously cited non-existent/fictitious cases in filings; VMware asserted those citations were likely AI-hallucinated and the Court warned against filing such fabricated case citations. Outcome: Required meet-and-confer for AI-use disputes.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. California, with the listed outcome: Required meet-and-confer for AI-use disputes.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtN.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateFeb 4, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeRequired meet-and-confer for AI-use disputes
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
Required meet-and-confer for AI-use disputes
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff (pro se) previously cited non-existent/fictitious cases in filings; VMware asserted those citations were likely AI-hallucinated and the Court warned against filing such fabricated case citations.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Sebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (2)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff (pro se) previously cited non-existent/fictitious cases in filings; VMware asserted those citations were likely AI-hallucinated and the Court warned against filing such fabricated case citations. Outcome: Required meet-and-confer for AI-use disputes.
- Why does Sebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (2) matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. California, with the listed outcome: Required meet-and-confer for AI-use disputes.
- What does the public record establish about Sebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (2)?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Sebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (2) 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.