AI failures · Fabricated content
Villalovos-Gutierrez v. Van de Pol — Gordon Rees Cautioned, Then Ordered to Show Cause, Over Fictitious Citations
Verified Checked against its sources on 5 sources quoted
- Where it happened
- California, United States
- Organization
- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP (defence counsel)
- Date
- 2025-12-03 (court's caution); 2026-02-24 (order to show cause)
- Function
- Legal
- Where it happened
- Legal research; brief drafting
- System
- Unknown. The court warned about AI-hallucinated citations and the drafter denied using AI; the court has not found that AI was used.
- Technology
- Not clear from the sources
- Type of failure
- Fabricated content
- Caught by
- A court
Summary
In a wage-and-housing class action brought by former dairy workers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney's December 3, 2025, discovery order listed five cases cited by the defence that were miscited, inaccurately cited or not real, and cautioned counsel that filing AI-hallucinated or fictitious citations without confirming them is a potential ground for sanctions. On February 24, 2026, the court found the defence had again cited cases that do not exist despite that warning, and ordered it to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed. Defence counsel Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani answered on March 3, 2026, with a partner's declaration accepting responsibility for not cite-checking a former senior counsel's drafts; the drafter denied using AI and attributed the errors to faulty notes and transcription. The court has not found that AI was used. On March 9, 2026, after reviewing the response, the court ordered a further statement on document production; the docket through April 12, 2026, shows no sanctions order. The matter followed the November 2025 public reprimand of a former Gordon Rees senior counsel in an Alabama bankruptcy for AI-generated fake citations.
Consequence
- Court cautioned defence counsel about fictitious or inaccurate citations (December 3, 2025)
- Order to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed for repeated citation to non-existent cases (February 24, 2026)
- March 9, 2026: after reviewing the show-cause response, the court ordered a further statement on document production; no sanctions order on the docket through April 12, 2026
Who caught it A courtFound outside the organization
Key dates
- December 3, 2025Event
- October 20, 2026Checked against sources
- October 21, 2026Checked against sources
Developments are added when the record is reviewed. Next review: January 20, 2027.
Evidence
Each passage is quoted from its source. The quoted passages are re-checked against the live pages every month.
-
cautioned regarding fictitious or inaccurate case citations.
Supports: 3 Dec 2025 caution to defence counsel; the order lists five miscited or non-existent cases and warns about AI-generated citations
-
defendant's counsel for repeated citation to fictitious or non-existent cases
Supports: 24 Feb 2026 order to show cause on repeated non-existent citations after the prior warning
Defendant also cites cases purportedly from this district that do not exist,1 even though defendant
Supports: Court's finding that the defence again cited cases that do not exist after the prior warning
-
using artificial intelligence in her research and instead advised that she relied on research she
Supports: Gordon Rees is defence counsel; the drafter denied AI use (the preceding words on the page are 'Ms. Scully denied'); partner accepted responsibility
-
The court has reviewed Defendant G&H Dairy's [39] Response to the 2/24/2026 [39] Order to Show Cause. Good cause appearing, Defendant G&H Dairy shall provide a further statement on the status of production
Supports: Caption, court, judge; disposition of the show-cause response (9 Mar 2026 minute order)
STATEMENT of re Missing Discovery Responses filed by Plaintiff Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez
Supports: Latest docket entry available (ECF No. 43, 12 Apr 2026); no sanctions order between the show-cause response and this entry
-
A bankruptcy judge publicly reprimanded a former Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani senior counsel for submitting filings with artificial-intelligence generated fake citations, although the firm itself avoided court sanctions.
Supports: The firm's earlier, separate AI-citation matter (Jackson Hospital bankruptcy, Nov 2025)
Bankruptcy Judge Reprimands Ex-Gordon Rees Lawyer for AI Citations Nov. 21, 2025
Supports: Date of the earlier reprimand report (November 2025)
Suggested citation. Eminence Scan, “Villalovos-Gutierrez v. Van de Pol — Gordon Rees Cautioned, Then Ordered to Show Cause, Over Fictitious Citations”, Eminence Growth Solutions, last verified October 20, 2026, https://eminencegrowthsolutions.com/tools/eminence-scan/record/fail-010/.
Using our research: you may read and quote Eminence Scan with credit to “Eminence Scan, Eminence Growth Solutions” and a link; all other rights reserved. Terms: Using our research.
Spotted an error, or a development we have missed? Report a correction. How we check records: research methodology.
