Teniah Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, et al.
E.D. California · Sep 9, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court sanctioned the attorney $1,500 for filing a motion containing fabricated and misrepresented case law. The court further ordered the attorney to provide a copy of the sanction order to her client and referred the matter to the State Bar of California for potential disciplinary action.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the attorney's submission of nonexistent cases and misrepresented holdings violated FRCP 11(b) and Local Rule 180(e). The court determined that the attorney's post-hoc explanations were inconsistent and lacked credibility, and that the conduct wasted judicial resources and undermined the integrity of the court, warranting sanctions to deter future violations.
- Why it matters now
- Even a $1,500 sanction triggers State Bar notice and client disclosure — treat every AI cite as a bar-referral risk.
Why this matter is tracked
Counsel for the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration containing eighteen erroneous citations out of twenty-four total, including two completely fabricated cases and numerous instances of misquoted or misrepresented authority. When challenged by opposing counsel and the court, the attorney provided inconsistent explanations, initially dismissing the errors as formatting issues and later attributing them to handwritten notes and time constraints, while denying the use of artificial intelligence. The court found the attorney's conduct violated FRCP 11(b) and Local Rule 180(e), noting the behavior was akin to contempt. The court imposed a $1,500 monetary sanction, ordered the attorney to serve the sanction order on her client, and directed that the order be referred to the State Bar of California for disciplinary review.
Even a $1,500 sanction triggers State Bar notice and client disclosure — treat every AI cite as a bar-referral risk.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court noted the citations bore hallmarks of AI but did not definitively find AI was used.
The court issued a sua sponte sanction order following an order to show cause regarding the attorney's submission of erroneous and fabricated citations in a motion for reconsideration.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a nonexistent Seventh Circuit opinion; court found no such published Seventh Circuit opinion under that citation.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Attorney attributed a quotation to In re Loudermilch that does not appear there; court found the quoted language actually appears in Seedman (9th Cir.).
- False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel quoted language about lack of jurisdiction/compelling arbitration and attributed it to Atlantic Marine; the case discusses forum-selection clauses and does not contain the quoted language.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel attributed a statement about liberal application of Rule 60(b)(6) to Ackermann; court found Ackermann does not contain that language.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Tittjung as stating a judgment is void when rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction; court found Tittjung actually explains lack of subject-matter jurisdiction will not always render a judgment void, so the citation was misleading.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel quoted Beggerly as addressing Rule 60(b)(6); court found Beggerly does not discuss 60(b)(6) and the parenthetical was inaccurate.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a nonexistent Eleventh Circuit opinion; court searched reporters and found no such case or reporter entry.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Teniah Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, et al.?
- The court sanctioned the attorney $1,500 for filing a motion containing fabricated and misrepresented case law. The court further ordered the attorney to provide a copy of the sanction order to her client and referred the matter to the State Bar of California for potential disciplinary action.
- Why does Teniah Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- Even a $1,500 sanction triggers State Bar notice and client disclosure — treat every AI cite as a bar-referral risk.
- What does the public record establish about Teniah Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, 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 Teniah Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, 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.