HomeCasesTekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al.

C.D. California · Apr 28, 2026

CA / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationscivil rightstrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Attributed 'In re Shubert, 799 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2015)' as authority in Plaintiff's Opposition to Ogilvie's MSJ (p.17); Court found the case fabricated and the reporter/pincite corresponds to an unrelated real case. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Reporting to other courts.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanction; Reporting to other courts; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and civil rights involving LexisNexis+ (Protégé) with Monetary Sanction; Reporting to other courts in C.D. California, 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 civil rights involving LexisNexis+ (Protégé) with Monetary Sanction; Reporting to other courts in C.D. California, 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.

CourtC.D. California

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateApr 28, 2026

AI toolLexisNexis+ (Protégé)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary Sanction; Reporting to other courts

Known amount$2,500

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

LexisNexis+ (Protégé) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Monetary Sanction; Reporting to other courts

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 | Attributed 'In re Shubert, 799 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2015)' as authority in Plaintiff's Opposition to Ogilvie's MSJ (p.17); Court found the case fabricated and the reporter/pincite corresponds to an unrelated real case.
Fabricated: Case Law | Same fabricated citation used twice in Plaintiff's Opposition to Transdev's MSJ (Opp'n TMSJ pp.15–16); Court noted counsel failed to disclose these additional uses in initial declaration.
Fabricated: Case Law | Third instance of the same fabricated authority appearing in briefing; Court treated repeated uses as aggravating factor in finding bad faith and imposing monetary and reporting sanctions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Attributed 'In re Shubert, 799 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2015)' as authority in Plaintiff's Opposition to Ogilvie's MSJ (p.17); Court found the case fabricated and the reporter/pincite corresponds to an unrelated real case. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Reporting to other courts.
Why does Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and civil rights involving LexisNexis+ (Protégé) with Monetary Sanction; Reporting to other courts in C.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al.?: 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 Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al. 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.

Modern Floor Specialists, Inc. et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.C.D. California · Apr 3, 2026same court · fake citations + civil rights Leonard Colbert v. County of RiversideC.D. California · Mar 31, 2026same court · fake citations + civil rights Pedro Paulo Mansur Pagano Sampaio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.C.D. California · Jul 2, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Lagac v. Capital One, N.A.C.D. California · May 22, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Oscar Danilo Montealto Garcia v. Todd Lyons, et al.C.D. California · May 14, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Song Dow Lee, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, et al.C.D. California · May 7, 2026same 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

Operational lesson

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtC.D. California

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateApr 28, 2026

AI toolLexisNexis+ (Protégé)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary Sanction; Reporting to other courts

Known amount$2,500

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Same fabricated citation used twice in Plaintiff's Opposition to Transdev's MSJ (Opp'n TMSJ pp.15–16); Court noted counsel failed to disclose these additional uses in initial declaration.

Fabricated: Case Law | Third instance of the same fabricated authority appearing in briefing; Court treated repeated uses as aggravating factor in finding bad faith and imposing monetary and reporting sanctions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al.?

Why does Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al.?

Which source supports this Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al. 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.