AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesVillasenor v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Villasenor v. Ralphs Grocery Co.

California SC · Oct 28, 2025

CA / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsemploymenttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified a fabricated case citation ('Bilo v. Dept. of Defense') in the plaintiff's opposition brief, attributing the error to AI tools used by counsel. The court formally noted the hallucination in its ruling, refused to consider the non-existent authority, and proceeded to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the merits.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition cited 'Bilo v. Dept. of Defense (D. Haw. 2010) 720 F. Supp. 2d 1267'; the Court determined this case does not exist and refused to treat it as supporting authority.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in California SC, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In an employment discrimination lawsuit, the plaintiff's opposition brief included a citation to 'Bilo v. Dept. of Defense (D. Haw. 2010) 720 F. Supp. 2d 1267'. The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, identified this case as non-existent. The court explicitly noted in its ruling that the citation was likely generated by AI tools used by the party or counsel and was not attributable to the court. The court refused to treat the fabricated case as supporting authority. The underlying employment dispute involved claims of wrongful termination and disability discrimination, which the court ultimately addressed by granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding no triable issues of material fact regarding the employer's knowledge of the plaintiff's alleged disability.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in California SC, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCalifornia SC
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateOct 28, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issue of material fact regarding the plaintiff's claims.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court noted the citation was likely generated by AI tools.

Procedural posture

Trial court ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition cited 'Bilo v. Dept. of Defense (D. Haw. 2010) 720 F. Supp. 2d 1267'; the Court determined this case does not exist and refused to treat it as supporting authority.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Villasenor v. Ralphs Grocery Co.?
The court identified a fabricated case citation ('Bilo v. Dept. of Defense') in the plaintiff's opposition brief, attributing the error to AI tools used by counsel. The court formally noted the hallucination in its ruling, refused to consider the non-existent authority, and proceeded to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the merits.
Why does Villasenor v. Ralphs Grocery Co. matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in California SC, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Villasenor v. Ralphs Grocery Co.?
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 Villasenor v. Ralphs Grocery Co. 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.

Evans v. Execushield, Inc.California SC · Mar 10, 2025same court · employment + trialGreenberg v. First Bank, Inc.California SC · Feb 17, 2026same court · fake citations + trialBacurin v. BacurinCalifornia SC · Jan 13, 2026same court · fake citations + trialMareiorozyan v. Automobili Lamborghini America, LLCCalifornia SC · Nov 19, 2025same court · fake citations + trialSanchez v. Chedraui USA, Inc.California SC · Nov 6, 2025same court · fake citations + trialLin v. LealCalifornia SC · Oct 23, 2025same court · fake citations + trial