Public trackerCorpus refreshed Nov 3, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 29, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Home/courts/Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
SCLACAState or local
Illustrated court-scope marker · not a courthouse photo
Source-linked corpus view

Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County

Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County appears in 12 of 2,257 public corpus records (0.53%). This page describes the recorded dataset, not an incidence rate, prevalence of AI use, or a prediction of future outcomes.

Matched records12
Corpus denominator2,257
Source linked100%
Latest trackedJul 14, 2026
Evidence-based answer

What kinds of legal AI issues and responses appear in Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County?

AI Vortex currently links 12 source-linked public matters associated with Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (10), Misrepresented authority (6) and Fabricated or altered quotations (3). Recorded responses and outcomes include No adjudicated consequence recorded (5), Warning or admonishment (4) and Order to show cause (3). 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 authorities10 records
Leading recorded responseNo adjudicated consequence recorded5 records
Known USD amountsNone recorded0 known · 0 unquantified
Recorded date rangeOct 31, 2024through Jul 14, 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 12 of 12 matching records.

Salvador Guzman v. Lithia Motors, Inc., et al.Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County · CA · UnidentifiedEditorial impact: low
Jul 14, 2026
Greenberg v. First Bank, Inc.Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)Editorial impact: low
Feb 17, 2026
Bacurin v. BacurinSuperior Court of California, Los Angeles County · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)Editorial impact: low
Jan 13, 2026
Heiting v. I Am Beyond LLCSuperior Court of California, Los Angeles County · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)Editorial impact: low
Jan 13, 2026
Mareiorozyan v. Automobili Lamborghini America, LLCSuperior Court of California, Los Angeles County · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)Editorial impact: low
Nov 19, 2025
Wade v. Traincareconsult, IncSuperior Court of California, Los Angeles County · CA · AI (implied, unspecified)Editorial impact: medium
Nov 7, 2025
Sanchez v. Chedraui USA, Inc.Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County · CA · UnidentifiedEditorial impact: medium
Nov 6, 2025
Villasenor v. Ralphs Grocery Co.Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County · CA · UnidentifiedEditorial impact: low
Oct 28, 2025
Lin v. LealSuperior Court of California, Los Angeles County · CA · UnidentifiedEditorial impact: medium
Oct 23, 2025
Roman v. County of Los AngelesSuperior Court of California, Los Angeles County · CA · UnidentifiedEditorial impact: low
Aug 27, 2025
Gezalayan v. BMW North American, LLCSuperior Court of California, Los Angeles County · CA · UnidentifiedEditorial impact: low
Aug 6, 2025
Churchill Funding v. 732 IndianaSuperior Court of California, Los Angeles County · CA · UnidentifiedEditorial impact: low
Oct 31, 2024
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.

Before the next filing goes out, review the workflow behind it.

These records show where AI-assisted filings went wrong. AI Vortex works with law firms and legal teams on one AI-assisted workflow at a time: who reviews the output, who signs, and what source trail it leaves. Operations design, not legal advice.

Review a workflow