Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc.
N.D. California · Apr 7, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- N.D. California
- Record ID
- thanh-nguy-v-jabil-inc-2026-04-07
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the request for sanctions regarding the fictitious citation but issued a formal warning to counsel.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court declined to impose sanctions on counsel for the inclusion of a fictitious, likely AI-generated case citation. The court issued a formal warning, emphasizing that attorneys have an affirmative duty to verify the existence and accuracy of all legal authorities and citations, regardless of the tools used to generate them.
The court reasoned that while counsel's inclusion of a fictitious citation was concerning, the prompt filing of a corrected brief and counsel's stated remedial steps mitigated the need for sanctions. The court emphasized the duty of candor and the requirement for reasonable inquiry under Rule 11.
File a corrected brief immediately when a fabricated citation surfaces; prompt correction often avoids sanctions.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Employment
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order on motion for sanctions in a federal employment discrimination action.
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 refers to the citation as likely generated by an AI tool.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all case law citations, regardless of the research tool used.
- Establish a policy for immediate withdrawal or correction of filings if an error or hallucination is discovered.
- Document internal verification steps to demonstrate compliance with Rule 11 duties of reasonable inquiry.