Villalovos-Gutierrez v. Van de Pol
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California · E.D. Cal. · California bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- Villalovos-Gutierrez v. Van de Pol, No. 2:24-cv-02305-DJC-CKD (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2026) (Order and Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 39); earlier admonishment at id. (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2025)
- Decided
- February 24, 2026
Summary
In a wage-and-hour class action against G & H Dairy, defense counsel from Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has now been flagged twice in the same case for filing briefs containing fabricated case citations. On December 3, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney issued a formal admonishment after a brief was found to contain unsupported and apparently fabricated citations, including a reference to Ho v. Ernst & Young LLP, 2011 WL 7106622, that did not stand for the proposition asserted. The court directed that counsel shall not file documents containing AI-hallucinated or fictitious citations going forward. Roughly three months later, on February 24, 2026, Judge Delaney issued an Order to Show Cause after defendant's opposition brief contained two further fabricated citations, Brown v. Johnson, No. 1:06-cv-01068, 2009 WL 1788406 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2009), and Watkins v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., No. 1:08-cv-01530, 2012 WL 1906523 (E.D. Cal. May 25, 2012). The court noted defendant had already received a prior warning in the same case that citing nonexistent cases is a potential ground for sanctions.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
The December 2025 order issued no monetary sanction but put counsel on formal notice that future AI-hallucinated or fictitious citations would warrant sanctions. The February 2026 order denied plaintiffs' contempt motion without prejudice, and directed defendant and/or defense counsel to show cause in writing within 7 days why monetary sanctions should not be imposed for repeated citation to fictitious cases, and to address improperly redacted document production and provide a complete-production timeline.
Why does Villalovos-Gutierrez v. Van de Pol matter for law firms using AI?
Villalovos-Gutierrez is the case to cite when explaining why a single judicial warning is not enough. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani received a formal December 2025 admonishment to stop filing briefs with hallucinated citations. Three months later, in the same case, the firm did it again, and the next order from the same magistrate carried OSC language and the threat of monetary sanctions. The repetition is the point: a prior judicial warning to verify citations did not change behavior, which is exactly the pattern malpractice carriers and bar counsel cite when arguing that AI verification protocols need to be enforced through firm policy rather than left to individual lawyer discretion. For a managing partner, the case is also a reminder that even no-fee warnings create a documented record that future courts and malpractice carriers can weigh against the firm and its individual lawyers when a second incident occurs.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- https://www.sternekessler.com/news-insights/insights/ai-ip-year-in-reviewai-hallucinations-in-court-filings-and-orders-a-2025-review-of-sanctions-across-the-courts-and-rule-proposals/
- Document mirror (Damien Charlotin hallucination database, Westlaw printout)
- Document mirror (Damien Charlotin hallucination database, Westlaw printout)
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.
- Name of the individual sanctioned attorney within Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani not extracted from the order text.
- Specific generative AI tool was not named in either order.