AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 20, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 15, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesThornton v. Amazon.com Services LLC
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Thornton v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

E.D. California · Oct 13, 2026

CA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycontractWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a removal-related holding and quotation to In re Shell Oil Co., 932 F.2d 418, 420. The citation actually corresponds to Pierre v. I.N.S., which concerns immigration and does not address removal or remand. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fabricated quotes and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fabricated quotes with Warning in E.D. California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a removal-related holding and quotation to In re Shell Oil Co., 932 F.2d 418, 420. The citation actually corresponds to Pierre v. I.N.S., which concerns immigration and does not address removal or remand. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fabricated quotes with Warning in E.D. California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtE.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateOct 13, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
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

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

  1. Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a removal-related holding and quotation to In re Shell Oil Co., 932 F.2d 418, 420. The citation actually corresponds to Pierre v. I.N.S., which concerns immigration and does not address removal or remand.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited In re Shell Oil Co., 932 F.2d 418, 420, for a quotation stating that courts scrutinize removals filed on the last permissible day before an adverse state-court ruling. The court found both the citation and quotation incorrect.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation about removal statutes and forum gamesmanship to Mayor of Philadelphia v. Educational Equality League, 415 U.S. 605, 628. The court found that the case contains neither the quotation nor discussion of removal.
  4. Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 799, for the statement that all doubts must be resolved in favor of remand. The court found that the case contains neither the quotation nor discussion of removal.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Thornton v. Amazon.com Services LLC?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a removal-related holding and quotation to In re Shell Oil Co., 932 F.2d 418, 420. The citation actually corresponds to Pierre v. I.N.S., which concerns immigration and does not address removal or remand. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Thornton v. Amazon.com Services LLC matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fabricated quotes with Warning in E.D. California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Thornton v. Amazon.com Services LLC?
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 Thornton v. Amazon.com Services LLC 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.

Lohbeck v. CSL Plasma Inc.E.D. California · Jul 16, 2026same court · pro se + fabricated quotesTeniah Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, et al.E.D. California · Sep 9, 2025same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authorityVerduzco v. Con Agra Foods Packaged Foods, LLCE.D. California · Sep 28, 2026same court · pro se + fabricated quotesStephen Lohbeck v. Amazon.com Services, LLCE.D. California · Aug 20, 2026same court · pro se + fabricated quotesKimberly A. Graves v. Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyE.D. California · Jul 24, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authorityKrista C. Geddes v. LoanCare, LLC, et al.E.D. California · Apr 22, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + contract
Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.