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.

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 81/100. 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

CA California (4d) · Jun 23, 2026

CA / state Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations fabricated quotes misrepresented authority Warning

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 Warning. 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.

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

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 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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Patterson cited a non-existent federal case to support her arguments; court flagged it as fabricated authority.
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).
Fabricated: Case Law | Patterson relied on a purported Fifth Circuit decision that the court determined does not exist.
Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple cited bankruptcy decisions listed in the brief were identified as nonexistent or unverifiable AI-generated citations.
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 Warning. 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.
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.

Patterson v. Nuvision Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jul 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Kingdom of Sweden v. Samantha Ashhadi SolimanCA California · Dec 1, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Del Biaggio v. BansenCA California (4d) · Jul 10, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Howell Management Services, LLC v. Vashisht-RotaCA California · Dec 15, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations O.K., LLC v. MelkaCA California (2d) · Apr 23, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Samuel K. v. Winsley FociaCA California · Feb 26, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document limited

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Aug 17, 2026; latest tracked decision Aug 13, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open CA California (4d) profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology