Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union
CA California (4d) · Jun 23, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA California (4d)
- Record ID
- trina-r-patterson-v-digital-federal-credit-union-2026-06-23
- Observed outcome
- 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
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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 linked source identifies the filing problem as: Patterson cited a non-existent federal case to support her arguments; court flagged it as fabricated authority..
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Appellate
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- 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
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Limited (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Check the cited authority, reporter reference, and pinpoint against the primary source before filing.
- Correct any unsupported citation promptly and preserve the verification record.
- Treat the listed consequence as case-specific rather than as a general rule about AI use.