Gezalayan v. BMW North American, LLC

What did the court warn about?

In an August 6, 2025 minute order adopting its tentative ruling without opposition, Judge Jerrold Abeles denied BMW's motion. The court held that a lessee contractually obligated to make the lease payments may recover even though a third party paid the lessor, that the vehicle's use to transport the plaintiff's children and partner bore on its use, value or safety to her, and that she had in any event personally paid $4,800; it also held that Civil Code section 1795 extends the implied warranty of merchantability to a distributor that makes an express warranty. On the citation, the court wrote: "On its own motion, the court orders Steven A. Simons, counsel for plaintiff Helen Gezalayan, to explain the reason for citing the non-existent case" in the opposition brief. It added: "The court admonishes plaintiff's counsel to refrain from referencing non-existent authority in any future briefings which may result in sanctions." The order sets no deadline, form or hearing for the explanation, imposes no sanction, and makes no referral. Plaintiff was directed to give notice.

Why does Gezalayan v. BMW North American, LLC matter for law firms using AI?

Gezalayan is a Song-Beverly lease case in which the court, on its own motion, ordered counsel to explain a nonexistent citation, in the same minute order that ruled for the filer’s client. BMW argued that the plaintiff had no damages because her partner drove the car and made the payments. Judge Abeles rejected that argument on real authority, relying on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC, the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, and Green Wood Industrial Co. v. Forceman International Development Group, and noting that the plaintiff had personally paid $4,800 in any event. The court also held that a distributor that makes an express warranty takes on the implied warranty of merchantability under Civil Code section 1795.

The plaintiff’s brief had supported one argument, that the “Constructive Payment Doctrine Supports Recovery,” with a single case, “Steele v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 10 Cal. App. 5th Supp. 1, 10 (2016).” The court called it a “non-existent case” and the “sole authority” for the argument. The minute order does not say that BMW raised the problem; it says the court acted “[o]n its own motion.” It does not mention artificial intelligence, and the Charlotin tracker’s AI coding is an inference the court did not make.

The court ordered counsel, by name, “to explain the reason for citing the non-existent case” and admonished counsel “to refrain from referencing non-existent authority in any future briefings which may result in sanctions.” The order sets no deadline or hearing for the explanation and imposes no sanction. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the court, on its own motion, identified counsel by name in the order, and asked for an explanation even though the motion was decided for counsel’s client on other grounds.