H.C. v. Contreras

What happened

The opinion in H.C. v. Contreras does not mention artificial intelligence, and the record does not establish that AI produced the fictitious citation or the copied passage. The matter is included because a trial court adopted fabricated authority in its own ruling after being warned, which is the conduct this subtopic tracks. How the citation was generated is unknown.

A mother sought a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act on behalf of the minor, her son, against the minor's father. The parents share joint physical custody, and their separate custody case is ongoing. After a contested hearing over four days, the parties filed closing briefs.

The father's brief, filed by counsel, cited "Enrique M. v. Angelina V. (2005) 15 Cal.App.5th 788" for a definition of disturbing the peace, and asserted that Family Code section 6203 "also requires that abuse must place the petitioner in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury." The mother's counsel replied that the case did not exist and that section 6203 imposed no such requirement. The only similarly named decision, from 2004 at 121 Cal.App.4th 1371, concerned a request to modify custody.

The written ruling, by Judge Irene A. Luna of the superior court, denied the order. The Court of Appeal found that it reproduced the brief's passage verbatim, save for substituting "Mother" for the mother's name, down to a missing space after a section symbol. The panel wrote that this detail indicates "the trial court may have copied-and-pasted" from the brief. The mother then requested a statement of decision on December 27, 2024, within 10 days of the tentative ruling of December 18. The court never responded.

What the court did

Writing for the panel, Justice Snauffer held that "the trial court committed at least two clear legal errors." The first was citing and relying on the fictitious case, an error "underscored by the fact" that the mother had already brought it to the court's attention. The second was the statutory misstatement. Section 6203 lists four independent forms of abuse, and the opinion states: "Section 6203 is written in the alternative and not the conjunctive."

For the governing standard, H.C. v. Contreras quoted the published decision in Torres Campos and Munoz: "Reliance on fake cases is fundamentally incompatible with an informed exercise of discretion controlled by genuine principles of law." The panel separately held that the failure to issue a requested statement of decision under Code of Civil Procedure section 632 required reversal here, because it prevented effective review.

The disposition in H.C. v. Contreras:

• reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings;
• directed that the matter be assigned to a new trial judge for all future proceedings;
• awarded costs to the appellant.

The opinion recites counsel's duties under Business and Professions Code section 6068(d) and rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, but the disposition imposes no sanction on counsel and orders no referral.

Where it stands

H.C. v. Contreras is not published. Under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), it may not be cited or relied on by courts or parties except as rule 8.1115(b) allows. It is recorded here as an example of conduct, not as authority. The Volokh Conspiracy reported the opinion the day after it was filed.

The matter returned to the superior court for a new hearing before a different judge. No later ruling was located as of October 21, and the appellate opinion does not say who prepared the fictitious citation or how.

The obligation it engaged

Clause 4 of the Standard, checkability before adoption, is the clause H.C. v. Contreras engages most plainly: text was adopted into a ruling after a specific, documented warning that its authority did not exist. Clause 2, non-delegation, applies to the ruling itself, which the appellate court found was a reproduction of one party's brief. Clause 3, independent authority, applies to the brief, which cited a case no one appears to have opened. The clauses are mapped by conduct, not by any finding about AI, which the record does not contain.

The lesson for an expert witness is direct. When a report incorporates language drafted by retaining counsel, a flagged error travels with the copied text unless someone stops to check it. An expert who receives notice that a cited source is wrong should verify it, correct the report and record the correction before relying on that passage again.

Sources

• California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District · May 28, 2026
  H.C. v. Contreras, F089316, opinion filed 5/28/26 (nonpublished)
• The Volokh Conspiracy (Reason) · May 29, 2026
  California Judge "Cited and Relied on a Fictitious Case" Submitted by Lawyer, Even Though ...

What could not be confirmed

The opinion does not mention artificial intelligence; whether AI generated the fictitious Enrique M. citation is not established by the record and is not asserted here. The opinion gives the panel's surnames only. The outcome of proceedings on remand was not located as of 2026-10-21. The Volokh post was checked for its title and date only.