Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 11, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 9, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Home/courts/E.D. California
EDCAFederal district
Illustrated court-scope marker · not a courthouse photo
Source-linked corpus view

E.D. California

E.D. California appears in 18 of 2,038 public corpus records (0.9%). This page describes the recorded dataset, not an incidence rate, prevalence of AI use, or a prediction of future outcomes.

Matched records18
Corpus denominator2,038
Source linked100%
Latest trackedAug 20, 2026
Evidence-based answer

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

AI Vortex currently links 18 source-linked public matters associated with E.D. California. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (15), Misrepresented authority (7) and Fabricated or altered quotations (6). Recorded responses and outcomes include Warning or admonishment (7), Order to show cause (6) and No adjudicated consequence recorded (4). 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 count below links to the exact matching records. The linked source, subsequent docket history, and local procedural context remain controlling.

Leading issue signalFabricated authorities15 records
Leading recorded responseWarning or admonishment7 records
Known numeric amounts$2,5002 known · 0 unquantified
Recorded date rangeJan 17, 2025through Aug 20, 2026
Observed issue mix

What problems appear in these records?

Issue categories can overlap within a single matter.

Recorded consequences

How did courts or authorities respond?

Response categories can overlap and do not imply that every matter ended in a sanction.

Participant context

Who appears in these matters?

Matter context

Which practice areas are represented?

Attribution status

How is AI involvement recorded?

Unspecified attribution is not evidence that a particular vendor was used.

Corpus evolution

When were these matters recorded?

Public records in this view

Showing the most recent 18 of 18 matching records.

Stephen Lohbeck v. Amazon.com Services, LLCE.D. California · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)
Aug 20, 2026
Kimberly A. Graves v. Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyE.D. California · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)
Jul 24, 2026
Lohbeck v. CSL Plasma Inc.E.D. California · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)
Jul 16, 2026
That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (2)E.D. California · CA · ChatGPT
May 21, 2026
Pyle v. Glenn County Sheriff's DepartmentE.D. California · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)
May 12, 2026
Krista C. Geddes v. LoanCare, LLC, et al.E.D. California · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)
Apr 22, 2026
Shaw v. City of Portola, et al.E.D. California · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)
Apr 14, 2026
Gamez v. County of FresnoE.D. California · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)
Apr 6, 2026
Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez, et al. v. Gerard Van de Pol, et al. (2)E.D. California · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)
Feb 24, 2026
Daniel James Cummins v. Moises BecerraE.D. California · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)
Feb 9, 2026
That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1)E.D. California · CA · ChatGPT
Jan 22, 2026
Lindalbeth Lopez Hernandez v. Leanna LundyE.D. California · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)
Jan 14, 2026
Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez, et al. v. Gerard Van De Pol (1)E.D. California · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)
Dec 3, 2025
Gibralter v. DMS FlowersE.D. California · CA · Unidentified
Sep 19, 2025
Teniah Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, et al.E.D. California · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)
Sep 9, 2025
Tellez v. ProiettiiE.D. California · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)
Aug 4, 2025
Kessler v. City of AtwaterE.D. California · CA · Unidentified
Jul 11, 2025
United States v. HayesE.D. California · CA · Unidentified
Jan 17, 2025
Open all matching records

Scope and limitation

This page 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 a judge’s general practices or sanction rate. For every entity type, the view is not a comparison against unobserved proceedings.

Indexing and evidence status

This public entity profile is indexable and meets the evidence-depth baseline of at least 3 source-linked records.