COURT EVIDENCE REPORT

C.D. California

A print-ready review packet of the issues, recorded responses, participant context, and source-linked matters currently associated with this profile.

Matched records32

Source linked100%

Known amount total$115,647

Recorded rangeApr 11, 2024 – Sep 3, 2026

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What kinds of legal AI issues and responses appear in C.D. California?

AI Vortex currently links 32 source-linked public matters associated with C.D. California. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (28), Fabricated or altered quotations (17) and Misrepresented authority (10). Recorded responses and outcomes include Order to show cause (9), Warning or admonishment (9) and Monetary sanction (8). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the court.

Every distribution below links to the exact matching records. This report does not convert corpus counts into a behavioral prediction.

OBSERVED ISSUE MIX

What problems appear in these records?

Fabricated authorities28 · 87.5%Fabricated or altered quotations17 · 53.1%Misrepresented authority10 · 31.3%

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.

RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

Order to show cause9 · 28.1%Warning or admonishment9 · 28.1%Monetary sanction8 · 25%Bar or professional referral4 · 12.5%No adjudicated consequence recorded4 · 12.5%Dismissal or adverse disposition2 · 6.3%

A recorded response does not imply that every matter ended in a sanction.

PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

Lawyer21 · 65.6%Pro Se Litigant11 · 34.4%

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

Contract12 · 37.5%Tort6 · 18.8%Civil Rights3 · 9.4%IP3 · 9.4%Other3 · 9.4%

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 12 of 32

Sep 3, 2026Falkenstein v. NilesC.D. CaliforniaUnidentifiedSource

Aug 20, 2026Cecile Kasengela v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, et al.C.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Aug 20, 2026Michael Dotson v. Bob Evans Farms, LLCC.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Aug 3, 2026Ali Jabbari v. Parviz Omidvar, et al.C.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jul 2, 2026Pedro Paulo Mansur Pagano Sampaio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.C.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source

May 22, 2026Lagac v. Capital One, N.A.C.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source

May 14, 2026Oscar Danilo Montealto Garcia v. Todd Lyons, et al.C.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source

May 7, 2026Song Dow Lee, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, et al.C.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Apr 28, 2026Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al.C.D. CaliforniaLexisNexis+ (Protégé)Source

Apr 17, 2026Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, Inc.C.D. CaliforniaUnidentifiedSource

Apr 6, 2026James Jordan v. USA, Clinicas Del Camino Real, Inc., et al.C.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Apr 3, 2026Modern Floor Specialists, Inc. et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.C.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Open all matching records

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

Scope, traceability, and limits

This report groups existing structured public-record fields. For judges, the counts describe matters in which that person is recorded as a decision-maker; they do not establish general practices, sanction rates, or future behavior.

The complete docket, later history, local rules, standing orders, and controlling primary materials remain authoritative.

CONNECTED INTELLIGENCE

Related corpus profiles

United States32 shared records California32 shared records Fake Citations28 shared records Fabricated Quotes17 shared records Misrepresented Authority10 shared records Warning9 shared records