Teniah Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, et al.
E.D. California · Sep 9, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- E.D. California
- Record ID
- teniah-tercero-v-sacramento-logistics-llc-et-al-2025-09-09
- Observed outcome
- The court imposed a $1,500 monetary sanction, required service of the order on the client, and referred the attorney to the State Bar of California.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,500
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Even a $1,500 sanction triggers State Bar notice and client disclosure — treat every AI cite as a bar-referral risk.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Published Opinion
- Contract
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,500
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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 noted the citations bore hallmarks of AI but did not definitively find AI was used.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.