Skip to content

Courts on AI / monthly digest

What courts said about AI in February 2026

59 court-authored documents filed this month that substantively discuss generative AI. Fabricated or misquoted citations 55 · Privilege and work product over AI use 2 · Court rules adopted by opinion or order 1 · AI-generated evidence and authentication 1.

compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub

← December 2025 · March 2026 →

  1. In the Matter of the Estate of Arturo Lopez

    · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Arizona Court of Appeals on 2026-02-27 in In the Matter of the Estate of Arturo Lopez found the self-represented party's opening brief contained two citation defects involving fabricated or misattributed quotations, mischaracterized authority, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  2. David Thomas v. The Quikrete Companies, LLC

    · United States District Court for the Western District of Texas · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Western District of Texas on 2026-02-26 in David Thomas v. The Quikrete Companies, LLC found counsel's summary-judgment briefing misrepresented Ash v. Flowers Foods and used hallucinated quotations that do not appear in that opinion. The magistrate judge recommended granting Quikrete summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' summary-judgment motion despite the hallucinated quotation.

  3. United States v. Robert Ponce, Jr.

    · United States District Court for the District of Nevada · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    District of Nevada on 2026-02-26 in United States v. Robert Ponce, Jr. found counsel's motion contained one citation defect involving nonexistent authorities, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court warned counsel to verify legal authorities before future filings in the challenged filing before resolving the pending matter.

  4. Volker v. Nygaard

    · Supreme Court of North Dakota · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Supreme Court of North Dakota on 2026-02-26 in Volker v. Nygaard found the self-represented party's brief contained one citation defect involving nonexistent authorities, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court dismissed the appeal with prejudice as a Rule 11 sanction for repeated fictitious AI-generated citations.

  5. Hicks v. City of Albany

    · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Court of Appeals of Georgia on 2026-02-26 in Hicks v. City of Albany found counsel's brief contained two citation defects, including Knight v. Pierson, involving nonexistent authorities, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court warned counsel to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  6. Samuel K. v. Winsley Focia

    · California Court of Appeal · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    California Court of Appeal on 2026-02-26 in Samuel K. v. Winsley Focia found the self-represented party's opening brief contained three citation defects, including Medical Board v. Superior Court and People v. Panah, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court dismissed the appeal, assessed appellate costs, and addressed the defective authorities.

  7. Estate of Khallid Muhammad et al v. Tupac Shakur Estate et al

    · United States District Court for the Central District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Central District of California on 2026-02-26 in Estate of Khallid Muhammad et al v. Tupac Shakur Estate et al found counsel's response contained two citation defects involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations, mischaracterized authority. The court ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions, striking, or referral should not issue for the defective authorities.

  8. Perry v. Exeter Finance LLC

    · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    District of Arizona on 2026-02-26 found the self-represented party's filing contained three citation defects, including Chavez v. Bank of Am., 2014 WL 2159382 (D. Ariz. 2014), Matterhorn, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 763 F.2d.... The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  9. Moses v. State

    · Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee on 2026-02-25 in Moses v. State found the self-represented party's appellate brief contained one citation defect involving nonexistent authorities, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court dismissed claims or denied relief after identifying the defective authorities.

  10. Kettering Adventist Healthcare v. Sandra Collier, et al.

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Southern District of Ohio on 2026-02-25 found counsel's brief contained nine citation defects, including In re Protech, 51 F.4th 714 (6th Cir. 2022), United States v. Pendergraft and Inc. v. Impact Office Prods, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court found contempt, struck the defective filing, and ordered counsel to pay $7,500.

  11. Roosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit Union

    · United States District Court for the District of Kansas · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    District of Kansas on 2026-02-25 in Roosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit Union found the self-represented party's brief contained one citation defect, including Howard v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2019 WL 1401348 (D. Kan. Mar. 28, 2019) and Howard v. CitiMortgage, involving nonexistent authorities. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  12. Straub v. Henderson

    · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Florida District Court of Appeal on 2026-02-25 in Straub v. Henderson found the self-represented party's appellee brief contained one citation defect involving nonexistent authorities. The court affirmed the judgment while identifying the defective authorities in the appellate briefing in the challenged filing before resolving the pending matter.

  13. Anthony Jama Hall v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

    · California Court of Appeal · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    California Court of Appeal on 2026-02-25 in Anthony Jama Hall v. Superior Court of Sacramento County found the self-represented party's appellate brief contained three citation defects, including Sacramento v. Superior Court, involving nonexistent authorities, mischaracterized authority. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  14. Christina Leas Dunn v. Nelnet

    · United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Western District of Arkansas on 2026-02-25 in Christina Leas Dunn v. Nelnet found the self-represented party's motions cited several cases that Nelnet said did not exist; the party admitted the citations were incorrect and filed no correction. The court granted Nelnet's motion to dismiss, denied the plaintiff's motions, and dismissed the case without prejudice.

  15. In re termination of parental rights (HK)

    · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Arizona Court of Appeals on 2026-02-25 in In re termination of parental rights (HK) found counsel's brief contained four citation defects, including Raymond F. v. Dep't, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court referred counsel to disciplinary authorities for the defective citations.

  16. Gail Fung v. Liberty University

    · United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Western District of Virginia on 2026-02-24 in Gail Fung v. Liberty University found the self-represented party's complaint contained one citation defect involving nonexistent authorities, mischaracterized authority, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  17. Ryan Lee v. Capital One Bank et al.

    · United States District Court for the District of Utah · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    District of Utah on 2026-02-24 in Ryan Lee v. Capital One Bank et al. found the self-represented party's motion contained one citation defect involving mischaracterized authority, incorrect statutory or rule text, defective exhibits or submissions. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  18. Wells Fargo Bank v. Frances W. Dean

    · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Eastern District of Texas on 2026-02-24 in Wells Fargo Bank v. Frances W. Dean found the self-represented party's motion contained four citation defects involving nonexistent authorities, mischaracterized authority. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  19. Chapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation et al. (3)

    · United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Northern District of Oklahoma on 2026-02-24 in Chapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation et al. (3) found the self-represented party's brief contained three citation defects, including Inc. v. Carmen Feliciando and Badillo v. Thorpe, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court ordered the self-represented party to pay $405 for the defective authorities.

  20. Ebony Sherisse Lucas v. Charles W. Scharf, et al.

    · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Western District of North Carolina on 2026-02-24 in Ebony Sherisse Lucas v. Charles W. Scharf, et al. found the self-represented party's brief contained 13 citation defects involving nonexistent authorities, mischaracterized authority, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court ordered the self-represented party to show cause why sanctions, striking, or referral should not issue for the defective authorities.

  21. Louis J. Blazy v. Department of State

    · Civilian Board of Contract Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Civilian Board of Contract Appeals on 2026-02-24 in Louis J. Blazy v. Department of State found the self-represented party's motion contained three citation defects involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations, mischaracterized authority. The court admonished the self-represented party to verify cited authorities and avoid repeating the citation defects.

  22. Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez, et al. v. Gerard Van de Pol, et al. (2)

    · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Eastern District of California on 2026-02-24 in Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez, et al. v. Gerard Van de Pol, et al. (2) found counsel's motion contained two citation defects involving nonexistent authorities. The court ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions, striking, or referral should not issue for the defective authorities.

  23. Kenneth Hawkins v. I.C. System, Inc.

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Southern District of Texas on 2026-02-23 in Kenneth Hawkins v. I.C. System, Inc. found the self-represented party's motion contained one citation defect involving nonexistent authorities, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  24. Shawn Olali v. Ampex Brands, LLC

    · United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Northern District of Texas on 2026-02-23 in Shawn Olali v. Ampex Brands, LLC found the self-represented party's filing contained one citation defect involving nonexistent authorities, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  25. Zeus Realty Group LLC v. 1032 N Sycamore Owner LA, LLC et al

    · United States District Court for the Central District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Central District of California on 2026-02-23 in Zeus Realty Group LLC v. 1032 N Sycamore Owner LA, LLC et al found counsel's temporary-restraining-order motion cited nonexistent cases and inaccurate quotations while seeking to halt a state unlawful-detainer proceeding. The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, denied the temporary-restraining-order motion, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

  26. Zlatkin v. Gladwin County, et al.

    · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Eastern District of Michigan on 2026-02-20 found the self-represented party's motion contained two citation defects, including Wells v. UPS Airlines, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2022 WL 1234567 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2022), ABC Corp. v..... The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  27. In re: Marrett

    · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    District of Massachusetts on 2026-02-19 in In re: Marrett found the self-represented party's complaint contained two citation defects, including Goguen v. Nason and Ridgway v. Prudential Ins. Co, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court dismissed claims or denied relief after identifying the defective authorities.

  28. Juandel Pena and Martina Ruiz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Southern District of Florida on 2026-02-19 in Juandel Pena and Martina Ruiz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. found the self-represented parties' reply misread Holden and cited a nonexistent page beyond the end of the Eleventh Circuit opinion. The magistrate judge recommended denying the renewed preliminary-injunction motion and warned that further false AI citations could require a sanctions hearing.

  29. Johnson v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice et al

    · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Middle District of Florida on 2026-02-19 in Johnson v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice et al found the self-represented party's motion contained two citation defects, including Watson v. Amedisys Holding and Martin v. Dep't, involving nonexistent authorities. The court struck the defective filing and warned the self-represented party to verify cited authorities before filing again.

  30. Shaerica L. Walder v. Experian Information Solutions

    · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Eastern District of Texas on 2026-02-18 in Shaerica L. Walder v. Experian Information Solutions found the self-represented party's motion contained one citation defect involving nonexistent authorities, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  31. David Martin v. ODS Community Dental Insurance et al.

    · United States District Court for the District of Oregon · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    District of Oregon on 2026-02-18 in David Martin v. ODS Community Dental Insurance et al. found the self-represented party's motion quoted language not found in Zschernig and gave incomplete citations to Hartman, Estelle, and Glucksberg. The court denied the temporary-restraining-order motion and warned the self-represented plaintiff against further inaccurate or incomplete citations.

  32. In re Addition of a New Rule to the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals

    · Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals · Court rules adopted by opinion or order

    The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals adopts a procedural rule for generative-AI use in filings. Rule 1.17 requires parties or counsel to verify AI-generated or AI-modified content for accuracy and makes noncompliant filings subject to sanctions.

  33. Kendle Mardis v. Dealer Loyalty Protection, Inc., et al.

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Southern District of Ohio on 2026-02-18 found the self-represented party's brief contained one citation defect, including Johnson v. Mitchell, 2:20-cv-1882, 2020 WL 5649609 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 23, 2020) and Johnson v. Mitchell, involving nonexistent authorities, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  34. Kennon v. Ashley

    · United States District Court for the District of Kansas · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    District of Kansas on 2026-02-18 in Kennon v. Ashley found counsel's brief contained nine citation defects, including Take me to jail, Okay and It was the language, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions, striking, or referral should not issue for the defective authorities.

  35. Matter of: Adapt Forward, LLC

    · Government Accountability Office · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Government Accountability Office on 2026-02-18 in Matter of: Adapt Forward, LLC found counsel's filing contained three citation defects, including SRA Int’l, Inc, Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support and Caci, Inc, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court warned counsel to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  36. EFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al.

    · California Court of Appeal · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    California Court of Appeal on 2026-02-18 in EFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al. found counsel's reply brief contained six citation defects, including Leaf v. City, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court ordered counsel to pay $900 for the defective authorities and complete corrective CLE.

  37. Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions & Bridgecrest Credit Company

    · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Fifth Circuit on 2026-02-18 in Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions & Bridgecrest Credit Company found counsel's reply brief contained four citation defects, including Edwards v. General Motors Corp and Lewis v. Brown, involving fabricated or misattributed quotations, mischaracterized authority. The court ordered counsel to pay $2,500 for the defective authorities and complete corrective CLE.

  38. United States v. Heppner

    · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · Privilege and work product over AI use

    On 2026-02-17, the Southern District of New York holds that a criminal defendant’s Claude exchanges were not shielded from government review. The court finds no attorney-client privilege or work-product protection because the defendant used the AI tool on his own, not at counsel’s behest.

  39. Matter of M.S. (M.H.)

    · New York Court of Appeals · AI-generated evidence and authentication

    On 2026-02-17, the New York Court of Appeals reverses Family Court abuse findings based solely on videos obtained from a third party. The court holds the authentication foundation insufficient and discusses how deepfake technology makes circumstantial matching of places and people less reliable.

  40. McDowell et al. v. Turpen

    · United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado on 2026-02-17 in McDowell et al. v. Turpen found the self-represented party's motion contained one citation defect involving nonexistent authorities, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  41. In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction Litigation

    · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Northern District of California on 2026-02-17 in In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction Litigation found the expert's submission contained two citation defects involving mischaracterized authority. The court declined to exclude the expert but left the incorrect AI-generated citations for cross-examination.

  42. Greenberg v. First Bank, Inc.

    · Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County on 2026-02-17 in Greenberg v. First Bank, Inc. found counsel cited a nonexistent AI-generated case about certificate-of-deposit surrender and misapplied People v. Wharton and AARTS Productions. The court ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions, striking, or referral should not issue for the defective authorities.

  43. Alejandro Rios v. Puente Hills Ford

    · California Court of Appeal · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    California Court of Appeal on 2026-02-17 in Alejandro Rios v. Puente Hills Ford found the self-represented party's brief contained three citation defects, including Osumi v. Sutton, Fiore v. Alvord and Stanley v. Univ, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  44. Doe 1, et al. v. Shirley Lai, et al.

    · United States District Court for the Central District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Central District of California on 2026-02-17 found defense counsel attributed a quotation to Headley that the court could not locate and cited Dann for a proposition the court could not find. The court denied the motion to dismiss, granted judicial notice, and ordered defense counsel to produce authorities or explain why sanctions should not issue.

  45. Nia Elan Davis v. American Airlines, et al.

    · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    District of Arizona on 2026-02-17 in Nia Elan Davis v. American Airlines, et al. found the self-represented party's opposition cited a fictitious case, then withdrew the citation after the defendant requested dismissal as a sanction. The court granted the motion to dismiss, entered judgment for American Airlines, and did not impose sanctions after the plaintiff withdrew the fictitious citation.

  46. Merz v. City of Kalama

    · United States District Court for the Western District of Washington · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Western District of Washington on 2026-02-13 in Merz v. City of Kalama found the self-represented party's briefing misused Caruso for a per se defamation point and gave an inaccurate Sorensen citation later corrected to Norg. The court granted the motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, struck improper notices, and dismissed all claims with prejudice.

  47. Nydia Rosario v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company

    · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 2026-02-13 in Nydia Rosario v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company found counsel's brief contained five citation defects, including Id. at *2-3, Kiessling v. State Farm and Santiago v. Warminster Twp, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court ordered counsel to share the decision with the firm and address the citation-verification failure internally.

  48. In re: Telexfree Securities Litigation

    · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    District of Massachusetts on 2026-02-13 in In re: Telexfree Securities Litigation found counsel's filing contained four citation defects, including Jensen v. Phillips Screw Co, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions, striking, or referral should not issue for the defective authorities.

  49. Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus

    · Kansas Court of Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Kansas Court of Appeals on 2026-02-13 in Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus found the self-represented party's expert submission contained three citation defects, including Meadors v. Feltor, Edwards v. Scholtzs and Wilson v. Gutschenritter, involving incorrect statutory or rule text. The court deemed the arguments unsupported or waived because the cited authorities were defective.

  50. G2 Ops, Inc.

    · Government Accountability Office · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Government Accountability Office on 2026-02-13 in G2 Ops, Inc. found counsel's response to dismissal cited nonexistent case law that GAO said bore hallmarks of AI or large-language-model use without verification. GAO denied the protest in part, dismissed it in part, and warned that future submissions with nonexistent authority may lead to sanctions.

  51. Lindsey Newell v. The Law Offices of Travis R. Walker, et al.

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Southern District of Florida on 2026-02-13 in Lindsey Newell v. The Law Offices of Travis R. Walker, et al. found defense counsel's sanctions response included apparent AI hallucinations, later corrected after the court notified counsel of the problem. The magistrate judge recommended granting discovery sanctions in part and noted defendants corrected AI hallucinations after the court flagged them.

  52. Martha Liliana Picon-Diaz et al. v. Pamela J. Bondi

    · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Tenth Circuit on 2026-02-13 in Martha Liliana Picon-Diaz et al. v. Pamela J. Bondi found counsel's reply brief contained one citation defect, including Rodriguez-Romero v. Garland, 60 F.4th 1283 (10th Cir. 2023) and Rodriguez-Romero v. Garland, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court warned counsel to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  53. City of Dickinson v. Helgeson

    · Supreme Court of North Dakota · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Supreme Court of North Dakota on 2026-02-12 in City of Dickinson v. Helgeson found the self-represented party's appellee brief contained 15 citation defects, including Olson v. City and Stenehjem v. FreeEats.com Inc, involving nonexistent authorities, mischaracterized authority. The court ordered the self-represented party to pay $500 for the defective authorities.

  54. Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al.

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Southern District of Indiana on 2026-02-12 in Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al. found counsel's brief contained 15 citation defects, including Myers v. Passport Health, 2013 WL 5819270, Schuh v. American Express Bank and Merriman v. Equifax Info. Servs, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court referred counsel to disciplinary authorities for the defective citations.

  55. Seifert v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al.

    · United States District Court for the District of Idaho · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    District of Idaho on 2026-02-12 in Seifert v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al. found the self-represented party's response cited McGinnis v. GMAC Mortgage for propositions the court found fabricated or hallucinated. The court granted the dismissal motions and judicial-notice request, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and allowed an amended complaint.

  56. CVTEK, LLC (B-423943; B-423943.2)

    · Government Accountability Office · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Government Accountability Office on 2026-02-12 in CVTEK, LLC (B-423943; B-423943.2) found counsel's filing contained two citation defects involving nonexistent authorities, mischaracterized authority, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court warned counsel to verify legal authorities before future filings in the challenged filing before resolving the pending matter.

  57. TQJ, LLC v. Jennifer Esquivel et al.

    · United States District Court for the Central District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    Central District of California on 2026-02-12 in TQJ, LLC v. Jennifer Esquivel et al. found counsel's brief cited four defective authorities, including Steele v. County of San Mateo, Kogan v. Martin, and a Muller citation the court could not locate. The court ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions, striking, or referral should not issue for the defective authorities.

  58. Andre Legarza v. Northern Star (Alaska), Inc.

    · United States District Court for the District of Alaska · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    District of Alaska on 2026-02-12 in Andre Legarza v. Northern Star (Alaska), Inc. found counsel's filing contained two citation defects involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations, mischaracterized authority. The court warned counsel to verify legal authorities before future filings.

  59. Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc.

    · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Privilege and work product over AI use

    On 2026-02-10, the Eastern District of Michigan denies defendants’ bid to compel a pro se plaintiff’s AI-use materials. The court holds the requested materials are not discoverable and, in any event, are protected work product; using ChatGPT does not waive that protection.