Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.
U.S. District Court, Central District of California · C.D. Cal. · California bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-07189-SB-RAO (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2024)
- Decided
- October 30, 2024
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to remand that relied on a fabricated case and used fabricated quotations from the complaint. After the Court ordered her to disclose whether she had used AI in drafting the motion, counsel acknowledged using generative AI without the disclosure required by the Court's Civil Standing Order. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. found a Rule 11 violation, rejecting counsel's argument that lack of intent to deceive defeated sanctions and writing that an attorney's responsibility for a filing's contents "is not diminished in the least when the machine goes rogue."
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
- Sanction amount:
- $2,500
What sanction did the court impose?
$2,500 monetary sanction payable to the Clerk's Fiscal Section by December 30, 2024, with a mandatory requirement that counsel notify the California State Bar of the sanction and attach a copy of the order. Proof of payment and bar notification was due January 3, 2025.
Why does Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Mortazavi is notable for two reasons managing partners should track. First, the order pairs a modest monetary sanction with a mandatory self-report to the California State Bar, illustrating how AI-hallucination orders are now feeding directly into state disciplinary pipelines. Second, Judge Blumenfeld expressly rejected the “no intent to deceive” defense and grounded the sanction in the standing order’s affirmative AI disclosure and verification requirement, a model other district judges have since adopted.
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.