Suva v. Suva
California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three · Cal. Ct. App. (4th Dist. Div. 3) · California bar guidance
Conduct
Here appellant's opening brief quoted multiple cases for authority not found in them, including a real-property case cited on damages evidence.
Consequence
No sanction; the court said the misquotes could be improper AI use "or there could be another explanation," called them "potentially sanctionable," and reversed in part on the merits.
Lesson
Here the court did not need to find AI use to call the conduct potentially sanctionable: misrepresenting a holding was the problem either way.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Suva v. Suva, No. G065822 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2026) (nonpublished)
- Decided
- August 11, 2026
Summary
Clifford Suva II sued his daughter-in-law, Naveen Suva, for defamation per se and related torts over a text message calling him a "child molester." Naveen defaulted, and after more than two years of continuances for evidence of damages the Orange County Superior Court entered judgment in her favor, finding the evidence insufficient. Clifford appealed, represented by Benjimin M. Brees (Law Offices of Benjimin Michael Brees); Naveen did not appear. In footnote 2 the Court of Appeal stated that "Clifford's opening brief quotes multiple cases for authority not found in those decisions." It gave two examples: Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, cited for the standard of review on a default judgment and for a quoted statement about a plaintiff's own damages testimony, is an appeal after summary judgment that "does not anywhere state" the quoted language; and Erich v. Granoff (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 920 was cited for the proposition that testimony about pain and suffering is competent evidence, but "the Erich court made no such finding and that case involves the purchase of real property."
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the court said the misquoted authorities "could be an instance of counsel improperly using artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in brief writing or there could be another explanation"; no finding and no tool named)
What did the court warn about?
The court imposed no sanction. Footnote 2 states: "This could be an instance of counsel improperly using artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in brief writing or there could be another explanation. Regardless, it is potentially sanctionable, and we take this opportunity to remind counsel of their obligation not to falsely represent the holdings of cited authority," citing Shayan v. Shakib (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 619, 624. On the merits the appellant prevailed in part. Because the trial court did not fault the defamation per se allegations in the complaint, general damages were presumed, and the court held that Clifford "submitted competent evidence of his own damage and, at a minimum, was therefore entitled to nominal damages." The portion of the judgment denying damages was reversed and the matter remanded for the trial court to rehear and reconsider damages, with direction that "[a]t a minimum, the court should award nominal damages and appropriate costs." In all other respects the judgment was affirmed, and no costs were awarded on appeal. The opinion is not certified for publication.
Why does Suva v. Suva matter for law firms using AI?
Suva v. Suva is an unpublished Fourth District, Division Three opinion in which the AI discussion is a single footnote attached to the appellant’s winning argument. The court agreed with the appellant that the trial court erred in denying all damages on a defaulted defamation per se claim, but it first noted that his “opening brief quotes multiple cases for authority not found in those decisions.”
The court was careful about cause. It wrote that the misquotations “could be an instance of counsel improperly using artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in brief writing or there could be another explanation,” and made no finding either way. What it did say was that the source did not matter: “Regardless, it is potentially sanctionable, and we take this opportunity to remind counsel of their obligation not to falsely represent the holdings of cited authority.” The court cited Shayan v. Shakib (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 619 for that obligation and imposed no sanction.
The two examples the footnote gives are misattributions of propositions to real cases, not invented case names. Kim v. Sumitomo Bank was cited for quoted language about a plaintiff’s own damages testimony that the court said it “does not anywhere state,” and Erich v. Granoff was cited for a proposition about pain-and-suffering testimony although “the Erich court made no such finding.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this case, the reviewing court identified the misquoted authorities even though the respondent filed nothing, and that an appellant can prevail in part on appeal and still draw a sanctions reminder in the opinion.
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 that every quoted passage appears in the cited opinion. Here the court found that Kim v. Sumitomo Bank "does not anywhere state" the language quoted from it.
- Review whether a cited case's posture and subject match the proposition. The court noted Kim was a summary judgment appeal and Erich involved the purchase of real property.
- Document cite-checking even on appeals where the opponent does not appear. Respondent made no appearance here, and the court still identified the misquotations on its own.
- Consider that the court treated the source of the error as secondary. It named AI as one possible explanation, then said that "[r]egardless, it is potentially sanctionable."
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the court raised AI only as one possible explanation ("could be an instance of counsel improperly using artificial intelligence (AI) [...] or there could be another explanation"); it made no finding that AI was used. The Ropes & Gray tracker summary is the source that flagged this case.
- The California courts website removes nonpublished opinions from its public listing after a period; the source URL may stop resolving, and a Wayback Machine snapshot has not been captured.