Wade v. TrainCareConsult, Inc.

What sanction did the court impose?

In the November 7, 2025 minute order, Judge Ian C. Fusselman sustained the demurrer with 20 days' leave to amend on a bystander theory only, and granted the motion to strike, with prejudice as to the specified portions of paragraphs 15, 25 and 33 and otherwise without prejudice. The court wrote that the oppositions "contain what appear to be inaccurate and false statements of law and facts seemingly in violation of counsel's duty to act with candor before this court," and that, "being based as it is on such false matters," they "appear to contain frivolous and misleading arguments that is sanctionable." It set the order to show cause "for payment of reasonable attorney fees to defendant" and directed that "Attorney Riasat Azmi is to personally appear." At the December 5, 2025 hearing, the court read the declaration of Riasat Azmi in response to the order to show cause, filed November 21, 2025, and heard oral argument. It then ordered "sanctions against Counsel for Plaintiff in the sum of $500 payable to Counsel for Defendant by 01/05/2026." The one-page December 5 minute order does not state the court's reasons or describe counsel's declaration, and it does not mention AI. A separate order to show cause about the defendant's answer was continued by stipulation.

Why does Wade v. TrainCareConsult, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?

Wade is a Los Angeles dependent adult abuse case in which the citation problems surfaced in oppositions to a demurrer and a motion to strike. The defendant’s reply argued that the opposition to the motion to strike quoted language that does not appear in the cited cases and, as the court summarized it, requested sanctions “based on apparent signs that the opposition contains artificial intelligence ‘hallucinations.’” Agreeing with the defendant, the court noted that the quoted phrases attributed to Hahn v. Mirda (“only applies to ‘clear and deliberate’ contradictions”) and Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (“sham doctrine [is] rarely applied”) do not appear in those cases; reviewing the oppositions itself, it found that they repeatedly cited paragraphs of the second amended complaint that do not exist, including paragraphs 86 and 88 through 92 of a pleading that ends at paragraph 65.

The court’s framing rests on candor rather than on AI. It cited the attorney’s duty of candor under Levine v. Bershneider, rule 3.3(a)(1) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct and Business and Professions Code section 6068(d), and quoted Noland v. Land of the Free that no filed paper should contain citations, “whether provided by generative AI or any other source,” that the responsible attorney has not personally read and verified. It described the oppositions as containing what “appear to be” inaccurate and false statements “seemingly” in violation of that duty, and set an order to show cause under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, which authorizes an award of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, for bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous. The court made no finding that AI was used.

At the December 5, 2025 hearing, after reading counsel’s written response and hearing argument, the court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to pay $500 to defense counsel. The one-page minute order does not explain the amount. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, here, the court treated misattributed case quotations and citations to nonexistent paragraphs of the party’s own pleading as parts of the same problem, and that it required the attorney named in the order to appear in person.