Kessler v. City of Atwater
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California · E.D. Cal. · California bar guidance
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Kessler v. City of Atwater, No. 1:25-cv-00288-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2025) (order to show cause)
- Decided
- July 11, 2025
Summary
Plaintiffs' counsel Brian K. Cuttone filed three briefs (oppositions to motions to dismiss and a reply on remand) containing at least six nonexistent cases, including Gonzalez v. County of Los Angeles, 2006 WL 589285; Ramos v. County of Madera, 2019 WL 2092748; and Yaka v. City of San Jose, 160 Cal. App. 4th 139. The briefs also attributed fabricated quotations to real opinions (Espindola v. Nunez, Harrell v. 20th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Navellier v. Sletten) and cited cases such as Caldwell v. Montoya, Turner v. California, and Cornell v. City & County of San Francisco for propositions the cases did not support. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston found the citations could not be explained as typographical errors and appeared "created out of whole cloth."
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
The court issued an order to show cause why Cuttone should not be sanctioned under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) and (c), 28 U.S.C. section 1927, and the court's inherent power. Within seven days, Cuttone was ordered to re-verify every citation in Docs. 28, 28-3, and 32, file true copies of each cited case (or detailed explanations if none exists), and submit a sworn declaration explaining how the briefs came to be filed and why the conduct would not recur. The court reserved decision on whether to set a hearing.
Why does Kessler v. City of Atwater matter for law firms using AI?
Kessler illustrates how an AI-citation problem can metastasize across an entire briefing package: the court catalogued errors in three separate filings, ranging from fully invented cases to misquoted real opinions to citations offered for propositions the cases never addressed. For managing partners, the order is a reminder that a single unverified research pass can put every brief in a matter at risk, and that judges in busy districts are increasingly willing to require attorneys to file the underlying opinions, not just attest to having checked them.
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.