Back to live profile
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
COURT EVIDENCE REPORTAV-ER-1WOX065Generated September 12, 2026Evidence checked Sep 11, 2026
COURT EVIDENCE REPORT

E.D. California

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

Matched records18
Source linked100%
Known amount total$2,500
Recorded rangeJan 17, 2025 Aug 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 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?

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.
RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

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

Who appears in these matters?

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 12 of 18
Aug 20, 2026Stephen Lohbeck v. Amazon.com Services, LLCE.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Jul 24, 2026Kimberly A. Graves v. Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyE.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Jul 16, 2026Lohbeck v. CSL Plasma Inc.E.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
May 21, 2026That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (2)E.D. CaliforniaChatGPTSource
May 12, 2026Pyle v. Glenn County Sheriff's DepartmentE.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Apr 22, 2026Krista C. Geddes v. LoanCare, LLC, et al.E.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Apr 14, 2026Shaw v. City of Portola, et al.E.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Apr 6, 2026Gamez v. County of FresnoE.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Feb 24, 2026Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez, et al. v. Gerard Van de Pol, et al. (2)E.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Feb 9, 2026Daniel James Cummins v. Moises BecerraE.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Jan 22, 2026That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1)E.D. CaliforniaChatGPTSource
Jan 14, 2026Lindalbeth Lopez Hernandez v. Leanna LundyE.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.