H. C. v. Contreras
California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District · Cal. Ct. App. · California bar guidance
Conduct
A father's counsel filed a closing brief citing a nonexistent case and misstating Family Code section 6203; the trial court copied both into its ruling.
Consequence
Here the Court of Appeal reversed the denial of a protective order, ordered reassignment to a new trial judge, and awarded costs; no sanction on counsel.
Lesson
In this case a flagged fictitious citation that the trial court adopted verbatim contributed to the reversal of the client's judgment on appeal, even without a sanction.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- H. C. v. Contreras, No. F089316 (Cal. Ct. App., 5th Dist., May 28, 2026) (nonpublished opinion) (Snauffer, J.)
- Decided
- May 28, 2026
Summary
Bethany G. sought a domestic violence protective order for her minor son, H. C., against his father, Rudy C., in Fresno County Superior Court. After a contested hearing, Rudy's counsel filed a closing brief that cited "Enrique M. v. Angelina V. (2005) 15 Cal.App.5th 788" for how "disturbing the peace" should be understood, and asserted that "Family Code §6203 also requires that abuse must place the petitioner in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury." Bethany's counsel replied that the citation did not exist and that section 6203 did not require proving "legitimate, immediate fear of bodily harm that is objectively reasonable" before an order may issue. The trial court's written ruling denying the order nonetheless reproduced both passages. The Court of Appeal called the citation "a fictitious case" and found the ruling "a verbatim reproduction--save for changing "Bethany" to "Mother"--including a spacing typo," noting in a footnote that the identical spacing "indicates the trial court may have copied-and-pasted from Rudy's brief." It held that section 6203 "is written in the alternative and not the conjunctive" and that "[i]mmediate bodily injury is not a prerequisite to issuing a protective order." The opinion does not name Rudy's trial counsel.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the opinion calls the cited case "fictitious" and "nonexistent" but does not attribute it to AI or name a tool)
- Amount or terms:
- None; the opinion quotes counsel's duties of candor from a prior decision but imposes no sanction on counsel and does not mention a referral
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
In an unpublished opinion by Justice Snauffer, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion by relying in material part on a fictional case authority and a misreading of section 6203, quoting In re Domestic Partnership of Campos and Munoz (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1112 for the rule that reliance on fake cases "is fundamentally incompatible with an informed exercise of discretion." It also held that the trial court's failure to respond to a timely request for a statement of decision required reversal in this case. The judgment was reversed and remanded, costs were awarded to the appellant, and the court directed that all future proceedings be assigned to a new trial judge. Addressing "Rudy's counsel's actions," the opinion quoted Campos and Munoz on an attorney's duty under Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (d), and California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3.3(a)(1) and (2), including that "[a] person's knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances." It made no further finding about counsel and imposed no sanction.
Why does H. C. v. Contreras matter for law firms using AI?
H. C. v. Contreras is an appeal about a trial court’s ruling, but the defective authority began in counsel’s filing. Rudy’s closing brief cited “Enrique M. v. Angelina V. (2005) 15 Cal.App.5th 788,” which the Court of Appeal called “a fictitious case,” and restated Family Code section 6203 as if imminent serious bodily injury were a required element of abuse. Bethany’s counsel flagged both problems before the ruling issued; the opinion notes in a footnote that her counsel identified an Enrique M. v. Angelina V. decision, (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1371, which “involved a father’s request to modify a custody order and is otherwise inapplicable to the present case.” The trial court’s ruling reproduced the brief’s language anyway, down to a missing space after a section symbol.
The appellate court treated the trial court’s reliance as an abuse of discretion, applying the rule from In re Domestic Partnership of Campos and Munoz that it is an abuse of discretion “to rely in material part on fictional case authorities in rendering a decision or making an order.” It paired that ground with the trial court’s failure to answer a timely request for a statement of decision, and concluded that “our confidence in the outcome is sufficiently undermined to justify reversal.” The remedy was reversal, remand, costs to the appellant, and assignment of all future proceedings to a new trial judge.
The opinion did not sanction or refer counsel. It closed its discussion by quoting Campos and Munoz on an attorney’s duty never to mislead a court “by an artifice or false statement of fact or law” and on the rule against knowingly misquoting authority, adding the quoted observation that knowledge “may be inferred from the circumstances.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, as here, the cost of an unverified citation can fall on the client’s result rather than on counsel, when a court relies on it and an appellate court then sets the ruling aside.
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 authority in post-trial closing briefs as closely as in motion papers. Here the fictitious case in a closing brief was reproduced in the court's ruling and became a ground for reversal.
- Review a response when opposing counsel flags a citation as nonexistent. The opinion notes that Bethany's counsel pointed out the error before the ruling, and nothing in the opinion indicates that the citation was withdrawn or corrected.
- Document statutory paraphrases against the text. The brief described section 6203 as requiring imminent serious bodily injury, which the court held misstates a provision written in the alternative.
- Consider that the court quoted the duties of candor under Business and Professions Code section 6068(d) and rule 3.3 in addressing counsel's actions, without making a finding.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the opinion does not mention artificial intelligence; inclusion follows the Charlotin and Ropes & Gray trackers, and any AI link is a tracker inference, not a court finding.