AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesThat Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1)
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1)

E.D. California · Jan 22, 2026

CA / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsimmigrationtrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and submitted a different, real 'Phan' citation. Outcome: Order to inform client and staff of errors.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and submitted a different, real 'Phan' citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Flores v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-00491, 2020 WL 1939565 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and provided a different, real citation.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in E.D. California, with the listed outcome: Order to inform client and staff of errors.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and submitted a different, real 'Phan' citation. Outcome: Order to inform client and staff of errors.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in E.D. California, with the listed outcome: Order to inform client and staff of errors.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtE.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJan 22, 2026
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeOrder to inform client and staff of errors
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Order to inform client and staff of errors

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and submitted a different, real 'Phan' citation.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Flores v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-00491, 2020 WL 1939565 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and provided a different, real citation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1)?
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and submitted a different, real 'Phan' citation. Outcome: Order to inform client and staff of errors.
Why does That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1) matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in E.D. California, with the listed outcome: Order to inform client and staff of errors.
What does the public record establish about That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1)?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1) 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.

Lindalbeth Lopez Hernandez v. Leanna LundyE.D. California · Jan 14, 2026same court · fake citations + immigrationThat Xiong v. Minga Wofford (2)E.D. California · May 21, 2026same court · fake citations + trialKimberly A. Graves v. Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyE.D. California · Jul 24, 2026same court · fake citations + trialPyle v. Glenn County Sheriff's DepartmentE.D. California · May 12, 2026same court · fake citations + trialKrista C. Geddes v. LoanCare, LLC, et al.E.D. California · Apr 22, 2026same court · fake citations + trialShaw v. City of Portola, et al.E.D. California · Apr 14, 2026same court · fake citations + trial