AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 26, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesTrina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union
Evidence review: primary document limited. The primary document was retrieved, but one or more case-level facts could not be tied to a page-located passage. The structured corpus baseline is preserved without upgrading those claims.
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

Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union

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.

CA California (4d) · Jun 23, 2026

CA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

In Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union, the CA California (4d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that patterson cited a non-existent federal case to support her arguments; court flagged it as fabricated authority. The recorded procedural consequence is no AI-specific sanction (the court noted the AI hallmarks in a footnote, affirmed the judgment and directed consideration of a vexatious-litigant declaration). The entry is dated 2026-06-23. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding.…

Why the court cared
The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Patterson cited a non-existent federal case to support her arguments; court flagged it as fabricated authority..
Why it matters now
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Why this matter is tracked

In Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union, the CA California (4d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that patterson cited a non-existent federal case to support her arguments; court flagged it as fabricated authority. The recorded procedural consequence is no AI-specific sanction (the court noted the AI hallmarks in a footnote, affirmed the judgment and directed consideration of a vexatious-litigant declaration). The entry is dated 2026-06-23. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.

Operational lesson

The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA California (4d)
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJun 23, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeNo AI-specific sanction: in a footnote the court noted the citations bear the hallmarks of AI hallucination and that pro se litigants must verify every citation; it affirmed the judgment and directed the trial court to consider declaring her a vexatious litigant
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

No AI-specific sanction: in a footnote the court noted the citations bear the hallmarks of AI hallucination and that pro se litigants must verify every citation; it affirmed the judgment and directed the trial court to consider declaring her a vexatious litigant

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Patterson cited a non-existent federal case to support her arguments; court flagged it as fabricated authority.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Patterson cited Romero for a proposition about the Uniform Commercial Code though Romero is a criminal case and does not support the proposition (misapplied precedent).
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Patterson relied on a purported Fifth Circuit decision that the court determined does not exist.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple cited bankruptcy decisions listed in the brief were identified as nonexistent or unverifiable AI-generated citations.
  5. False Quotes: Case Law | A quotation was attributed to a real California Supreme Court decision but the quoted language does not appear in that decision (false quotation).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union?
In Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union, the CA California (4d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that patterson cited a non-existent federal case to support her arguments; court flagged it as fabricated authority. The recorded procedural consequence is no AI-specific sanction (the court noted the AI hallmarks in a footnote, affirmed the judgment and directed consideration of a vexatious-litigant declaration). The entry is dated 2026-06-23. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding.…
Why does Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union matter for legal AI risk?
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
What does the public record establish about Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union?
Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
Which source supports this Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union 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.

Varma v. The Bank of New York MellonCA California (4d) · Aug 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsPatterson v. Nuvision Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jul 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsDel Biaggio v. BansenCA California (4d) · Jul 10, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authorityHowell Management Services, LLC v. Vashisht-RotaCA California · Dec 15, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsKingdom of Sweden v. [X]CA California · Dec 1, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsO.K., LLC v. MelkaCA California (2d) · Apr 23, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

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.