Heiting v. I Am Beyond LLC
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles · Cal. Super. Ct. (L.A. County) · California bar guidance
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Heiting v. I Am Beyond LLC, No. 23STCV27729 (Cal. Super. Ct. L.A. County Jan. 13, 2026) (Kuhl, J.) (tentative ruling)
- Decided
- January 13, 2026
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel Robert Tauler filed an opposition to summary judgment in a putative CIPA class action that quoted language attributed to In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation (9th Cir. 2020) 956 F.3d 589 and Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo (N.D. Cal. 2018) 329 F. Supp. 3d 1000 that "cannot be found" in either opinion. In a tentative ruling granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl wrote that "[a]s Defendant notes, it is likely that Mr. Tauler's briefing was influenced by hallucinations that are inherent in the use of artificial intelligence and that Mr. Tauler did not check and correct the erroneous purported citations before the Opposition was filed," and quoted Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 426 on the sanctionability of fabricated authority.
- AI tool:
- Not identified (the ruling says it is "likely" the briefing "was influenced by hallucinations that are inherent in the use of artificial intelligence")
What did the court warn about?
The ruling states: "Nonetheless, this court does not impose sanctions on counsel. Rather, if this court's ruling on this Motion were overturned on appeal, and if Mr. Tauler sought certification of a class on behalf of Plaintiff Heiting, this court would consider whether Mr. Tauler's lapses of duty rendered him inadequate as counsel for the class."
Why does Heiting v. I Am Beyond LLC matter for law firms using AI?
Heiting shows a court declining sanctions for quotations that “cannot be found” in the cited opinions while naming a different consequence. The tentative ruling says it is “likely” that counsel’s briefing “was influenced by hallucinations that are inherent in the use of artificial intelligence” and was not checked before filing. It then states that, if the summary judgment ruling were reversed and counsel sought class certification, the court “would consider whether Mr. Tauler’s lapses of duty rendered him inadequate as counsel for the class.” Firms that handle class actions may wish to consider that citation errors can prompt a court to question counsel’s adequacy to represent a class, even where no sanction issues.
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.
- The cited document is the court's tentative ruling for the January 13, 2026 hearing, e-served January 12, 2026 through Case Anywhere and mirrored by a third-party tracker. Whether it was adopted without change has not been confirmed from a court document. No court-hosted copy is reachable: the Los Angeles Superior Court's document images sit behind the PAOS login and fee system, and its free case-access register lists docket entries only.