Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Rotibi 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 →

Rotibi v. RealPage, Inc.

Court
CA Maryland
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2025-09-09
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Allegations on Appeal
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant alleged the trial court referenced a non-existent appellate decision as justification for denying relief; appellate court treated any such reference as harmless error and affirmed.

Details

Added on record because appellant argued the circuit court had relied on a non-existent appellate case as justification. The appellate court did not address this, concluding instead that, even if error, reversal was not required because the review of the motion to vacate is de novo, judges are presumed to know and apply the law, and no prejudice or basis to vacate the arbitration award was shown.

Sanction teardown · CA Maryland, USA · 2025-09-09

Rotibi v. RealPage, Inc.

What happened

In CA Maryland, 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)
    Appellant alleged the trial court referenced a non-existent appellate decision as justification for denying relief; appellate court treated any such reference as harmless error and affirmed.

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

Allegations on Appeal

Additional detail

Added on record because appellant argued the circuit court had relied on a non-existent appellate case as justification. The appellate court did not address this, concluding instead that, even if error, reversal was not required because the review of the motion to vacate is de novo, judges are presumed to know and apply the law, and no prejudice or basis to vacate the arbitration award was shown.

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/2238/Rotibi_v._Real_Page_USA_27_May_2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2238/Rotibi_v._Real_Page_USA_27_May_2026.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