TQJ, LLC v. Esquivel
U.S. District Court, Central District of California · C.D. Cal. · California bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- TQJ, LLC v. Esquivel, No. 2:25-cv-09673-BFM, 2026 WL 395737 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2026)
- Decided
- February 12, 2026
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel Richard L. B. Charnley of Charnley Rian LLP filed a Reply brief in a copyright dispute that contained four nonexistent citations, including a purported Muller v. Triborough Bridge, 43 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) that does not exist (the Westlaw pointer instead led to an unrelated suppression decision in United States v. De La Paz), and fabricated Lewis v. Activision Blizzard, Kogan v. Martin, and Steele v. County of San Mateo cites. At the motion hearing before Magistrate Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff, Charnley denied using generative AI and said he was unaware anyone at his firm had done so, but offered no explanation for the fabricated authority.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
Order to Show Cause issued February 12, 2026, requiring Charnley to respond by February 19, 2026 as to why he should not be sanctioned monetarily or by striking of his pleading under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, or the Court's inherent authority. The Court denied his request to file a supplemental brief substituting valid authorities, holding plaintiff would not get "a second bite at the apple."
Why does TQJ, LLC v. Esquivel matter for law firms using AI?
TQJ illustrates a recurring pattern that should concern any managing partner: the signing attorney denied using generative AI and claimed no awareness of firm use, yet four fabricated citations appeared in a Reply he signed and argued. Whether the cause is undisclosed AI use, undisclosed delegation, or inadequate cite-checking, the order treats lack of awareness of one’s own filing as itself sanctionable conduct under Rule 11.
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.