Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · N.D. Cal. · California bar guidance
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2026)
- Decided
- April 7, 2026
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel filed an opposition brief that repeatedly cited a purported Eastern District of California decision the court found likely to be a fictitious, AI-generated case. After the issue was raised, counsel filed a corrected brief removing the citation. The court declined to impose monetary or formal sanctions but issued a warning on the record regarding the duty to verify generative AI output before filing.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
Warning only: no monetary sanction, no professional discipline, no referral. Counsel was permitted to proceed after submitting corrective papers that excised the fabricated authority.
Why does Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Nguy v. Jabil illustrates the lower-friction end of the sanctions spectrum: a court that catches a fabricated citation, accepts a prompt corrective filing, and disposes of the issue with a warning rather than fees or discipline. For a managing partner, the lesson is not that warnings are routine but that they are conditional on visible self-correction. The same conduct, defended rather than cured, produces the orders elsewhere on this tracker.
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.