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.
TQJ, LLC v. Jennifer Esquivel et al.
C.D. California · Feb 12, 2026
CA / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesiptrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Citation pointed to an unrelated case (United States v. De La Paz) and the purported Muller decision cited (43 F. Supp. 2d 372, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)) could not be located as cited; an older unrelated Muller decision exists but does not support the proposition. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Citation pointed to an unrelated case (United States v. De La Paz) and the purported Muller decision cited (43 F. Supp. 2d 372, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)) could not be located as cited; an older unrelated Muller decision exists but does not support the proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not find any case called 'Steele v. County of San Mateo' at the cited 2021 WL and the offered quotation was not found in the cited jurisdiction; closest similar language found only in an unrelated N.D. Ohio case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited authority; the 2011 WL citation did not match the cited C.D. Cal. decision and the referenced Lewis case is from a different district and does not discuss the proposition cited. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court was unable to find any case called 'Kogan v. Martin' or the 2019 WL citation offered for the proposition about suggestions and critiques.
- Why it matters now
- Four fabricated cites in one brief means counsel never opened a reporter; mandate primary-source pull-through.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Citation pointed to an unrelated case (United States v. De La Paz) and the purported Muller decision cited (43 F. Supp. 2d 372, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)) could not be located as cited; an older unrelated Muller decision exists but does not support the proposition. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
Operational lesson
Four fabricated cites in one brief means counsel never opened a reporter; mandate primary-source pull-through.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtC.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateFeb 12, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeOrder to Show Cause
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
Order to Show Cause
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Citation pointed to an unrelated case (United States v. De La Paz) and the purported Muller decision cited (43 F. Supp. 2d 372, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)) could not be located as cited; an older unrelated Muller decision exists but does not support the proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not find any case called 'Steele v. County of San Mateo' at the cited 2021 WL and the offered quotation was not found in the cited jurisdiction; closest similar language found only in an unrelated N.D. Ohio case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited authority; the 2011 WL citation did not match the cited C.D. Cal. decision and the referenced Lewis case is from a different district and does not discuss the proposition cited.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court was unable to find any case called 'Kogan v. Martin' or the 2019 WL citation offered for the proposition about suggestions and critiques.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in TQJ, LLC v. Jennifer Esquivel et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Citation pointed to an unrelated case (United States v. De La Paz) and the purported Muller decision cited (43 F. Supp. 2d 372, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)) could not be located as cited; an older unrelated Muller decision exists but does not support the proposition. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
- Why does TQJ, LLC v. Jennifer Esquivel et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- Four fabricated cites in one brief means counsel never opened a reporter; mandate primary-source pull-through.
- What does the public record establish about TQJ, LLC v. Jennifer Esquivel et al.?
- 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 TQJ, LLC v. Jennifer Esquivel et al. 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.