HomeCasesStrike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe

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

Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe

C.D. California · Jan 22, 2025

CA / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationstorttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's motion cites a non-existent case (Mtn. at 2-3); the Court could not locate it and notes this suggests unverified AI use, warning of possible sanctions.

Why the court cared: Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym found the motion legally deficient on multiple grounds. In addition, she emphasized that counsel must not rely on fake or unverified authority. She cited Mata, Park, Gauthier, and others as cautionary examples of courts imposing sanctions for AI-generated hallucinations. The court reaffirmed that the use of AI does not lessen the duty to verify the existence and relevance of cited law
Why it matters now: Judges now recognize AI-hallucination patterns; one unverified citation triggers scrutiny of the entire brief.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's motion cites a non-existent case (Mtn. at 2-3); the Court could not locate it and notes this suggests unverified AI use, warning of possible sanctions.

Key Judicial Reasoning

Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym found the motion legally deficient on multiple grounds. In addition, she emphasized that counsel must not rely on fake or unverified authority. She cited Mata, Park, Gauthier, and others as cautionary examples of courts imposing sanctions for AI-generated hallucinations. The court reaffirmed that the use of AI does not lessen the duty to verify the existence and relevance of cited law.

Operational lesson

Judges now recognize AI-hallucination patterns; one unverified citation triggers scrutiny of the entire brief.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtC.D. California

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJan 22, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSee source

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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

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 | Defendant's motion cites a non-existent case (Mtn. at 2-3); the Court could not locate it and notes this suggests unverified AI use, warning of possible sanctions.
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's motion cites a second non-existent case (Mtn. at 2-3); the Court could not locate it and cautions that further such citations may lead to sanctions.
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's motion cites a third non-existent case (Mtn. at 2-3); the Court could not locate it, attributing the issue to likely AI-generated content without verification and warning of sanctions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe?: Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's motion cites a non-existent case (Mtn. at 2-3); the Court could not locate it and notes this suggests unverified AI use, warning of possible sanctions.
Why does Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe matter for legal AI risk?: Judges now recognize AI-hallucination patterns; one unverified citation triggers scrutiny of the entire brief.
What does the public record establish about Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe?: 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 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe 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.

James Jordan v. USA, Clinicas Del Camino Real, Inc., et al.C.D. California · Apr 6, 2026same court · fake citations + tort Angelica E. Cruz et al. v. United States of AmericaC.D. California · Dec 16, 2025same court · fake citations + tort Mirage v. Costco Wholesale CorporationC.D. California · Jul 31, 2025same court · fake citations + tort Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, Inc.C.D. California · Apr 17, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. All Season Power LLC, et al.C.D. California · Feb 13, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Yi-Sheng Fang, et al. v. Hechalou US LLC, et al.C.D. California · Sep 12, 2025same court · fake citations + trial

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's motion cites a non-existent case (Mtn. at 2-3); the Court could not locate it and notes this suggests unverified AI use, warning of possible sanctions.

Key Judicial Reasoning

Operational lesson

Judges now recognize AI-hallucination patterns; one unverified citation triggers scrutiny of the entire brief.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's motion cites a non-existent case (Mtn. at 2-3); the Court could not locate it and notes this suggests unverified AI use, warning of possible sanctions.

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's motion cites a second non-existent case (Mtn. at 2-3); the Court could not locate it and cautions that further such citations may lead to sanctions.

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's motion cites a third non-existent case (Mtn. at 2-3); the Court could not locate it, attributing the issue to likely AI-generated content without verification and warning of sanctions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe?

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's motion cites a non-existent case (Mtn. at 2-3); the Court could not locate it and notes this suggests unverified AI use, warning of possible sanctions.

Why does Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe matter for legal AI risk?

Judges now recognize AI-hallucination patterns; one unverified citation triggers scrutiny of the entire brief.

What does the public record establish about Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe?

Which source supports this Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe 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.