PAGA
Court Affirms Sanctions for AI-Fabricated Citations in a Brief
Updated
In Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed an order sanctioning a plaintiff’s law firm and three of its attorneys for filing an opposition brief that contained nonexistent citations and fabricated quotations evidently generated by an artificial-intelligence tool. The court held that the firm had forfeited its procedural and fee-related challenges and that the sanctions were not an abuse of discretion. The opinion was certified for publication.
Background
In June 2024, the Lipeles Law Group filed a wage-and-hour class action against Harbor Distributing and related entities in Los Angeles County, later amending it to add Private Attorneys General Act penalties. In December 2024, the same firm filed a second, substantially similar class action against the same defendants in San Francisco Superior Court, which also came to include a PAGA claim.
Harbor moved to stay the San Francisco action as a duplicative, overlapping case under the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. The firm opposed the stay with a brief that, the trial court found, cited two cases that did not exist, included no fewer than eight fabricated quotations, and seriously misrepresented controlling authority.
The court granted the stay and separately issued an order to show cause regarding sanctions. After briefing and a hearing, the trial court ordered the firm and three attorneys, jointly and severally, to pay $5,000 to Harbor and $1,000 to the court, and to report the order to other judges. The firm appealed.
What the Court Held on the Sanctions
The firm argued that the court ignored the “safe harbor” in Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (c)(2), which gives a party 21 days to withdraw a challenged filing. The Court of Appeal held that argument forfeited because the firm never raised section 128.7’s protections in the trial court, and the issue did not present the kind of important legal question that would justify reaching it for the first time on appeal.
The court added that any opportunity to cure had been lost through the firm’s own conduct: it stipulated to the tentative ruling, never sought to withdraw the opposition, and never acknowledged the fabrications even when responding to the order to show cause.
On the merits, the court reviewed the sanctions for abuse of discretion and found none. Counsel of record bore ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of a brief bearing their names, and they could not delegate that duty to a contract attorney or to any technology. Filing a brief built on fake authority, the court explained, is an abuse of the adversary system.
An attorney who signs and files a brief bears ultimate responsibility for verifying its citations and quotations, and cannot escape sanctions by delegating the work to a contract attorney or relying on generative AI. A party that never raises section 128.7’s safe harbor below forfeits the argument on appeal.
The Challenge to Sanctions Paid to the Opposing Party
The firm also argued that sanctions payable to a defendant are not allowed when a court issues an order to show cause on its own motion under section 128.7. The court held this claim forfeited as well, because the firm neither objected below nor adequately developed the argument on appeal, devoting only a few lines to it and misciting authority.
The court noted, without deciding, that California Rules of Court, rule 2.30(b) permits a court to award sanctions to the court, an aggrieved party, or both. The judgment was affirmed in full, and respondents were awarded costs.
What This Means for You
This decision confirms that an attorney who signs and files a brief remains responsible for verifying its citations and quotations, even when the drafting was outsourced or assisted by generative AI. It also holds that a party who does not raise section 128.7’s safe harbor in the trial court forfeits that argument on appeal. The case arises from sanctions for fabricated authority in a wage-and-hour and PAGA dispute.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.