June 1, 2026 (in 3 days): New York: 22 NYCRR Part 161 takes effect, system-wide AI policy for all UCS courts

Tovar v. American Automatic Fire Suppression, Inc.

Superior Court of California, County of San Diego · Cal. Super. Ct. (San Diego Cnty.) · California bar guidance

Court sanction

Verified April 26, 2026

Citation
Tovar v. American Automatic Fire Suppression, Inc., No. 37-2022-00045024-CU-PA-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct. San Diego Cnty. Oct. 3, 2025) (Caietti, J.)
Decided
October 3, 2025

Summary

Defense counsel from Tyson & Mendes LLP, supervising attorney Edward R. Leonard and associate Kianna Woods, filed a July 23, 2025 motion to compel an independent medical examination that contained citations to a nonexistent case, a citation that did not stand for the premise asserted, and citations to repealed statutes, alongside factual misrepresentations in Woods' supporting declaration. Judge Carolyn M. Caietti found defendants had admitted submitting authority that was "miscited, non-existent or inapposite," but denied plaintiff's OSC re sanctions on procedural grounds for failure to comply with the 21-day safe harbor of C.C.P. section 128.7.

AI tool:
Unspecified generative AI
This case summary is informational only. Verify the underlying opinion or order against the primary source before relying on it in any filing or client matter.

What sanction did the court impose?

OSC re sanctions denied; no monetary sanctions imposed. The court nonetheless stated it was "deeply troubled" by defense counsel's conduct, noted Leonard's acknowledged failure to supervise Woods, and warned that the conduct "erodes trust in the legal profession."

Why does Tovar v. American Automatic Fire Suppression, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?

Tovar is a cautionary case for managing partners of mid and large firms: the sanctioned conduct came out of Tyson & Mendes LLP, a 250-plus lawyer defense firm, and turned on a supervising attorney’s admitted failure to verify an associate’s filing. Sanctions were avoided only because plaintiff’s counsel missed the 21-day safe harbor under C.C.P. section 128.7, not because the fabricated citations were excused. The order’s invocation of the recently published Noland v. Land of the Free opinion signals that California trial courts now treat AI-generated fake authority as a known, foreseeable risk that supervising attorneys are expected to manage.

Sources

Further reading