Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Estate of Khallid Muhammad v. Tupac Shakur Estate

United States District Court for the Central District of California · Federal district courts · CA · 2026-02-26 · No. 2:25-cv-02540-JLS-JPR · order

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.

Disposition: The court found plaintiffs' response vague and deficient and ordered plaintiffs to appear and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
Recorded conduct: Plaintiffs' opposition contained citations to non-existent authority; their response confirmed one citation did not correspond to any publicly retrievable decision and mischaracterized another state-court case. — outcome: pending; actor: lawyer
Canonical record: Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

In the Order, the Court required Plaintiffs to provide explanation for citations to non-existent authority, and to disclose any use of Artificial Intelligence to the Court. ... Plaintiffs' response further confirms that the other citation "does not correspond to any publicly-retrievable decision." ... Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO APPEAR... to show cause as to why they should not be sanctioned for providing non-existent case citations to the Court.

Authorities cited in the passage: denied intervention where movants lacked legal title · does not correspond to any publicly-retrievable decision · Estate of Khallid Muhammad et al v. Tupac Shakur Estate et al Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ response

Court document: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-07 · court document read from a public copy; the court's own copy was not found online when checked (see notes)provisional
Found via: charlotin-hallucinations-db
Notes: Re-coded from the document 2026-09-08 (independent second read). Official copy not obtained 2026-09-08: not in the court's GovInfo feed for this docket (many district courts publish only some orders) (checked govinfo.gov (USCOURTS), CourtListener RECAP search).

United States court documents are public domain; the topic coding, disposition line and summary are SafeLegalAI's reading of the document for comparison, not a finding about any person named in it. This record summarises a public court document or official publication and reports what it says; SafeLegalAI makes no findings of its own. Individuals and organisations are named only as they appear in that public record. Anyone named may send a right of reply, correction or contextual update (for example an appeal, vacatur or later disposition) via /report; we add a dated note where appropriate. Reply or correct this record.

compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub