Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Ariel Mendones, et al. on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Ariel Mendones, et al. v. Cushman and Wakefield et al

Court
SC California
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2025-09-09
AI tool
Unidentified
Outcome
Terminating sanction: second amended complaint struck; entire action dismissed with prejudice.
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Exhibits 6A and 6C are deepfake videos purporting to capture the speech and image of Geri Haas; court found them GenAI-created and not the same person as Ex. 36. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Exhibit 7 is a materially altered photograph (subject stitched into Ring camera image; background/foreground mismatch noted). || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Exhibits 35 and 40 are messaging screenshots that appear AI-generated or materially altered; platform identification and fonts inconsistent between the two. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Metadata submitted with multiple exhibits contained atypical or added fields (e.g., copyright notices, URLs in musical genre), which the court found unreliable and possibly fabricated. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Other testimonial exhibits (Exs. 3, 6B, 21, 27) were found suspicious as to authenticity and reliability of supporting metadata and declarations.

Details

The court found multiple exhibits (videos, photographs, messaging screenshots, and metadata) to be fabricated or materially altered using generative AI. The court deemed Plaintiffs' explanations not credible, declined criminal referral, declined monetary sanctions, and imposed a terminating sanction under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(b).

Sanction teardown · SC California, USA · 2025-09-09

Ariel Mendones, et al. v. Cushman and Wakefield et al

What happened

In SC California, USA, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Exhibits 6A and 6C are deepfake videos purporting to capture the speech and image of Geri Haas; court found them GenAI-created and not the same person as Ex. 36.
  • Fabricated (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Exhibit 7 is a materially altered photograph (subject stitched into Ring camera image; background/foreground mismatch noted).
  • Fabricated (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Exhibits 35 and 40 are messaging screenshots that appear AI-generated or materially altered; platform identification and fonts inconsistent between the two.
  • Fabricated (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Metadata submitted with multiple exhibits contained atypical or added fields (e.g., copyright notices, URLs in musical genre), which the court found unreliable and possibly fabricated.
  • Fabricated (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Other testimonial exhibits (Exs. 3, 6B, 21, 27) were found suspicious as to authenticity and reliability of supporting metadata and declarations.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Terminating sanction: second amended complaint struck; entire action dismissed with prejudice.

Additional detail

The court found multiple exhibits (videos, photographs, messaging screenshots, and metadata) to be fabricated or materially altered using generative AI. The court deemed Plaintiffs' explanations not credible, declined criminal referral, declined monetary sanctions, and imposed a terminating sanction under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(b).

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/828/mendones-v-cushman-wakefield.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/828/mendones-v-cushman-wakefield.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template