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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc.
N.D. California · Apr 7, 2026
CA / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsemploymenttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Original opposition included a repeatedly-cited, purported E.D. Cal. decision that the court found likely to be a fictitious AI-generated case; counsel later filed a corrected brief removing the citation and the court declined to sanction. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- File a corrected brief immediately when a fabricated citation surfaces; prompt correction often avoids sanctions.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Original opposition included a repeatedly-cited, purported E.D. Cal. decision that the court found likely to be a fictitious AI-generated case; counsel later filed a corrected brief removing the citation and the court declined to sanction. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
File a corrected brief immediately when a fabricated citation surfaces; prompt correction often avoids sanctions.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtN.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateApr 7, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeWarning
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
Warning
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 | Original opposition included a repeatedly-cited, purported E.D. Cal. decision that the court found likely to be a fictitious AI-generated case; counsel later filed a corrected brief removing the citation and the court declined to sanction.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Original opposition included a repeatedly-cited, purported E.D. Cal. decision that the court found likely to be a fictitious AI-generated case; counsel later filed a corrected brief removing the citation and the court declined to sanction. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- File a corrected brief immediately when a fabricated citation surfaces; prompt correction often avoids sanctions.
- What does the public record establish about Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc.?
- 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 Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc. 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.