Bixler v. Church of Scientology International

How did the court address the AI-related conduct?

The February 19 order gave respondents' counsel notice under California Rules of Court, rule 8.276(c), "that the court is considering the imposition of monetary sanctions on respondents' counsel for the foregoing conduct," citing Noland v. Land of the Free, Schlichter v. Kennedy, Shayan v. Shakib, and rules 8.276(a)(4), 8.204(a)(1)(B), and 8.1115(a). Respondents could oppose within 10 days, and sanctions were to be argued with the merits. The docket shows respondents' response filed March 2, 2026, argument on March 3, and Kucera's withdrawal as counsel on March 9. The court's unpublished opinion of May 19, 2026 modified the order to grant the anti-SLAPP motions as to two short passages, affirmed as modified, and ordered each side to bear its own costs. The opinion does not mention sanctions, the citation errors, or artificial intelligence, and the full register of actions shows no order ruling on the notice; its only later reference is an April 1, 2026 notice of change of address for Kucera "limited to sanctions order." The court denied appellants' rehearing petition on June 15, 2026; the California Supreme Court denied review (S297235) on August 12, 2026; and the remittitur issued on September 8, 2026.

Why does Bixler v. Church of Scientology International matter for law firms using AI?

The only court act on the citations in Bixler is the February 19, 2026 order, and its substance is a concession rather than a finding. The order records that respondents’ counsel conceded three things: that the respondents’ brief was prepared “with the aid of artificial intelligence tools,” that “controls and policies to protect against the risk of improper use of those tools failed,” and that the brief “included material citation errors that were correctly identified by appellants in their reply brief.” It then quantified the problem by reference to the appellants’ reply: at least ten purported authorities “miscited or mischaracterized in more than fifteen places.” The order does not itself list the authorities, and it names no AI tool.

The court proceeded under the California Rules of Court rather than a free-standing order to show cause. It gave notice under rule 8.276(c) that it was “considering the imposition of monetary sanctions on respondents’ counsel,” invited an opposition within 10 days, and set the question for argument with the merits. Among its authorities it cited three 2025 Court of Appeal decisions (Noland v. Land of the Free, Schlichter v. Kennedy, and Shayan v. Shakib) and three rules, described in its own brackets as covering “sanctions for unreasonable violations of rules of court,” “failure to support contentions with citations to legal authority,” and the “prohibition on citing unpublished authority.” The order does not say which of the miscited authorities implicated which rule.

The court then did not rule on the notice. Its May 19, 2026 opinion decided the anti-SLAPP appeal, largely in the respondents’ favor, with each side bearing its own costs, and it says nothing about sanctions or the brief. Rehearing and review were denied and the remittitur has issued, so on this record no ruling on the notice appears and no reasons are stated. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, here, a conceded failure of AI-use controls put a firm’s counsel under a formal sanctions notice through argument, even though the court ultimately did not act on it.