The Court of Appeal of California has dismissed a plaintiff’s appeal in a repossession lawsuit after the parties settled, but not before sanctioning the plaintiff for filing a brief built on fabricated case law bearing the hallmarks of generative artificial intelligence.
The background: The lawsuit grew out of a vehicle purchase that the plaintiff financed and then stopped paying for.
- Three years ago, the plaintiff purchased a truck for $91,320.96, financing the entire purchase through a 71-month installment contract that was assigned to the defendant.
- After the defendant notified her that a payment was past due, the plaintiff mailed back a “non-negotiable notice of conditional acceptance,” writing “Accepted” on the notice and warning that if the defendant did not respond within 10 days, it would be presumed that “no further payment is owed” and the debt was discharged in full.
- When the defendant did not respond to that notice or several follow-ups, the plaintiff filed a UCC-1 financing statement with the California Secretary of State identifying herself as the secured party and the defendant as the debtor, and claiming the defendant owed her $273,962.88.
- After the defendant repossessed the truck, the plaintiff sued, seeking return of the vehicle, removal of derogatory credit reporting, and damages. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiff could not unilaterally change the terms of the contract.
The ruling: The Appeals Court dismissed the appeal based on the parties’ settlement, but issued an opinion anyway to explain why the plaintiff, who represented herself, was being sanctioned for the contents of her opening brief.
- The court’s review of the brief turned up citations to seven cases that do not exist and four quotations attributed to real cases that do not appear anywhere in them, prompting an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
- At a hearing, the plaintiff said an unidentified non-attorney helped prepare the brief, possibly using AI, and admitted she did not check the citations because she was not aware that “ghost caselaw was even a thing.”
- The court did not find credible her claim that she had learned her lesson, noting that even her motion responding to the order to show cause cited two cases that had nothing to do with the propositions for which they were cited, and that she took no corrective action in a nearly identical appeal against a different defendant, saying the court’s warning in that case “didn’t faze [her] one way or another.”
- Despite her promise that she will “not make up stuff” going forward, the court imposed a $500 sanction, though it suspended execution of the penalty.
- Because the plaintiff told the court she has prepared appellate briefs for other self-represented litigants for 16 years, the court referred the matter to the State Bar to investigate the possible unauthorized practice of law.
