Falkenstein v. Niles
U.S. District Court, Central District of California · C.D. Cal. · California bar guidance
Conduct
Defense briefs had quotations the court could not find in cited cases and misdescribed the complaint; their certifications said one brief was AI-free and the others' authorities were verified.
Consequence
Pending. The court ordered counsel to explain each error and her AI use at the motions hearing, stating it had not found any Rule 11 or standing-order violation.
Lesson
Here the court tested each AI certification against the filings it covered, and asked counsel to account for errors in a brief certified as drafted without AI.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Falkenstein v. Niles, No. 2:26-cv-07078-SB-PD, Order Regarding Defendants' Use of Artificial Intelligence (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2026) (Blumenfeld, J.), ECF No. 43
- Filing date
- September 3, 2026
Summary
In a trademark and partnership dispute brought by Beth Fieger Falkenstein against Prescott Niles and others, Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. identified what he called "several potentially concerning issues" in the defendants' motion to dismiss, their reply, and their opposition to a preliminary-injunction motion. The motion put in quotation marks a statement that an individual is liable only if he was "the moving, active conscious force behind the [defendant's] infringement," which the court said Committee for Idaho's High Desert v. Yost (9th Cir. 1996) does not appear to contain, and attributed to Cumulus Media v. Clear Channel (11th Cir. 2002) a successor-priority proposition the court had not located. The reply attributed allegations to paragraph 21 of the complaint that the court said do not appear to be there, including the quoted word "engaged," and relied on the absence of partnership formalities while citing a case stating they are not required. The opposition attributed quotations to Herb Reed Enterprises and Oakland Tribune v. Chronicle Publishing that the court said do not appear in those decisions. Counsel had certified that no portion of the motion memorandum was drafted with generative AI, and had disclosed AI use for the other two filings while certifying that she verified every authority.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI, tool not named (counsel disclosed generative AI use for the reply and the preliminary-injunction opposition and certified that no portion of the motion to dismiss was drafted with it; the court has not found that AI caused the errors)
What is the current procedural posture?
The September 3, 2026 order directed defense counsel Ashley D. Posner to be prepared at the hearing on the motions to address the source of the Yost quotation, the basis for the Cumulus Media proposition and for the reply's account of complaint paragraph 21, the inaccurate Herb Reed and Oakland Tribune quotations and citations, which portions of the reply and opposition were prepared with AI assistance and how she verified them, and whether generative AI was used in any manner on the motion to dismiss or its proposed order. The court stated: "The Court has not determined that counsel violated Rule 11, the Court's Standing Order, or any other obligation." No sanction had been imposed as of the order. The CourtListener docket later shows a hearing on September 4, an order on September 11, and a "Show Cause Hearing" entry on September 18, 2026; the September 11 order and the September 18 entry were not available in the RECAP archive, so the outcome of the inquiry is unknown.
Why does Falkenstein v. Niles matter for law firms using AI?
Falkenstein is a pre-hearing inquiry, not a sanctions ruling, and Judge Blumenfeld was explicit about that: “The Court has not determined that counsel violated Rule 11, the Court’s Standing Order, or any other obligation. The Court raises these issues so that counsel may provide an explanation at the hearing.” The order is useful because it shows how a court measures filings against the AI certifications that accompany them. Counsel had declared under penalty of perjury that “no portion” of the motion memorandum was “drafted or generated using generative artificial intelligence.” For the reply and the preliminary-injunction opposition she disclosed using generative AI for “sorting evidence, identifying relevant legal arguments, and drafting portions” of the filing, and certified that she had “verified the accuracy and existence of all legal authorities.” The court wrote that “[t]hese matters warrant explanation in light of counsel’s certifications concerning generative artificial intelligence.”
The defects the court listed are of the kind that a check limited to whether a case exists would miss. The order does not say that any cited case is nonexistent; the problems it describes are quotations the court could not find in the opinions, propositions attributed to pages that discuss something else, a party name in the Herb Reed citation that does not match the actual Ninth Circuit decision, and a description of the complaint that the complaint does not support. The court also asked whether generative AI had been used in any manner on the motion to dismiss, the filing certified as AI-free. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that a disclosure-and-certification regime makes the certification itself something the court can examine, and that in this case the questions extended to a brief certified as drafted without AI. The outcome of the September 18 show-cause hearing had not been located when this entry was written.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Verify that an AI certification is accurate before signing it. The court framed its inquiry around counsel's sworn statement that no portion of the motion was AI-drafted and her certifications that all authorities were verified.
- Review record citations as well as case law. The court flagged the reply's description of complaint paragraph 21, including a word placed in quotation marks that does not appear there.
- Document which portions of a filing were AI-assisted and how each was checked. The court directed counsel to identify those portions and the verification steps taken.
Sources
Primary sources
- Posture after September 3, 2026 is unverified. The docket lists ECF No. 45 (a September 4 motion-hearing entry), ECF No. 50 (an order dated September 11), and ECF No. 55 (a September 18 'Show Cause Hearing' entry). ECF Nos. 50 and 55 returned 404 from the RECAP archive on 2026-09-30, so whether the court imposed any sanction is not known; the entry is marked pending on the September 3 order.
- Whether generative AI produced the errors is not established. The order raises the question in light of counsel's AI certifications and asks counsel to explain; it makes no finding.