Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Kessler 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 →

Kessler v. City of Atwater

Court
E.D. California
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2025-07-11
AI tool
Unidentified
Outcome
Order to show cause issued for potential sanctions
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: Gonzalez v. County of Los Angeles; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: McGill v. City of Redding; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: Ramos v. County of Madera; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: Yaka v. City of San Jose; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: Simmons v. City of Sacramento; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent case: Kohn v. Kohn; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth. || False Quotes: Case Law | Fabricated quotation attributed to Espindola; court found the quoted language does not appear and the phrase "place of business" is absent. || False Quotes: Case Law | Fabricated quotation attributed to Harrell; court found the quote does not appear and the word "arbiters" is not used in the opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Fabricated quotation attributed to City of Montebello v. Vasquez; court found the quoted language does not exist and the term "tortious" is not used. || False Quotes: Case Law | Fabricated quotation attributed to Navellier; court noted the language does not appear and the case in fact holds the opposite regarding anti-SLAPP. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Caldwell as supporting liability for intentional torts like defamation/fraud; court noted Caldwell does not address those torts and instead concerns FEHA immunity. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Turner as eliminating Government Claims Act filing for defamation/fraud; court explained Turner involved premises liability from a shooting and did not address that proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Cameron as stating government employees are not immune from intentional torts; court said Cameron is limited to design immunity/duty to warn and noted the brief’s citation was incorrect (correct: 7 Cal.3d 318). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Cornell to claim no § 820.2 immunity when acting with malice, fraud, or oppression; court noted Cornell at cited pages discusses Bane Act and elsewhere false arrest immunity, not that proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Thayer as holding fraudulent conduct is never protected under anti-SLAPP; court said Thayer did not reach or speak to that issue. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim to claim defamation is not insulated by anti-SLAPP; court said it merely observed many SLAPPs involve defamation and did not issue that holding. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Kashian to assert fraud and breach of contract are inherently unlawful and not protected speech; court said Kashian did not so hold and page 905 defines SLAPP rather than excluding contract claims. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented Hagberg to argue alleged obstructive and defamatory conduct falls outside protected petitioning/speech; court said Hagberg addressed Civil Code § 47(b) privilege for reports to police, not the asserted proposition.

Sanction teardown · E.D. California, USA · 2025-07-11

Kessler v. City of Atwater

What happened

In E.D. 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 (Case Law)
    Cited non-existent case: Gonzalez v. County of Los Angeles; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Cited non-existent case: McGill v. City of Redding; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Cited non-existent case: Ramos v. County of Madera; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Cited non-existent case: Yaka v. City of San Jose; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Cited non-existent case: Simmons v. City of Sacramento; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Cited non-existent case: Kohn v. Kohn; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Fabricated quotation attributed to Espindola; court found the quoted language does not appear and the phrase "place of business" is absent.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Fabricated quotation attributed to Harrell; court found the quote does not appear and the word "arbiters" is not used in the opinion.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Fabricated quotation attributed to City of Montebello v. Vasquez; court found the quoted language does not exist and the term "tortious" is not used.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Fabricated quotation attributed to Navellier; court noted the language does not appear and the case in fact holds the opposite regarding anti-SLAPP.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Misrepresented Caldwell as supporting liability for intentional torts like defamation/fraud; court noted Caldwell does not address those torts and instead concerns FEHA immunity.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Misrepresented Turner as eliminating Government Claims Act filing for defamation/fraud; court explained Turner involved premises liability from a shooting and did not address that proposition.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Misrepresented Cameron as stating government employees are not immune from intentional torts; court said Cameron is limited to design immunity/duty to warn and noted the brief’s citation was incorrect (correct: 7 Cal.3d 318).
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Misrepresented Cornell to claim no § 820.2 immunity when acting with malice, fraud, or oppression; court noted Cornell at cited pages discusses Bane Act and elsewhere false arrest immunity, not that proposition.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Misrepresented Thayer as holding fraudulent conduct is never protected under anti-SLAPP; court said Thayer did not reach or speak to that issue.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Misrepresented Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim to claim defamation is not insulated by anti-SLAPP; court said it merely observed many SLAPPs involve defamation and did not issue that holding.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Misrepresented Kashian to assert fraud and breach of contract are inherently unlawful and not protected speech; court said Kashian did not so hold and page 905 defines SLAPP rather than excluding contract claims.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Misrepresented Hagberg to argue alleged obstructive and defamatory conduct falls outside protected petitioning/speech; court said Hagberg addressed Civil Code § 47(b) privilege for reports to police, not the asserted proposition.

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

Order to show cause issued for potential sanctions

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/591/Kessler_v._Atwater_USA_11_July_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/591/Kessler_v._Atwater_USA_11_July_2025.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