June 1, 2026 (in 3 days): New York: 22 NYCRR Part 161 takes effect, system-wide AI policy for all UCS courts

Yi-Sheng Fang, et al. v. Hechalou US LLC, et al.

U.S. District Court, Central District of California · C.D. Cal. · California bar guidance

Court sanction

Verified May 14, 2026

Citation
Yi-Sheng Fang v. Hechalou US LLC, No. 8:25-cv-01180 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025)
Decided
September 12, 2025

Summary

Defense counsel in Fang v. Hechalou US LLC submitted an opposition brief containing multiple AI-generated citations to cases that do not exist, along with false quotations and misrepresentations of real case law. After the fabricated authorities were identified, the court found that counsel had failed to verify the citations before filing.

AI tool:
Unspecified generative AI
Sanction amount:
$2,418.50
This case summary is informational only. Verify the underlying opinion or order against the primary source before relying on it in any filing or client matter.

What sanction did the court impose?

The court imposed a $2,418 monetary sanction, representing fees attributable to the AI-generated citations, and ordered counsel to notify the State Bar of California and to file a compliance declaration regarding remedial steps.

Why does Yi-Sheng Fang, et al. v. Hechalou US LLC, et al. matter for law firms using AI?

Fang v. Hechalou is a useful data point for managing partners weighing how small-dollar sanctions still trigger outsized downstream exposure. The fee award here is modest, but the court’s order to self-report to the State Bar of California and to file a compliance declaration creates a discoverable record that follows the firm into future malpractice underwriting and disciplinary review.

Sources

Primary sources

Further reading

Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.