Appeals court upholds trial order citing fake cases
A California appeals court on Thursday upheld a trial court order relying upon nonexistent cases because the appellant in the case had forfeited his right to challenge the decision denying shared custody and visitation of a pet dog. (Image from Shutterstock)
A California appeals court on Thursday upheld a trial court order relying upon nonexistent cases because the appellant in the case had forfeited his right to challenge the decision denying shared custody and visitation of a pet dog.
In a March 5 ruling, Justice Martin N. Buchanan of the California Court of Appeal’s Fourth Appellate District in San Diego wrote that while the court “erred by citing and relying in material part on fictional cases in its written order,” the losing party drafted and submitted the “very order containing these fabricated citations” and failed to call attention or object to their inclusion until much later.
Buchanan was joined by two other justices in the unanimous decision.
The case stems from a battle between exes over shared custody and visitation of Kyra, a family pet. Two years after his domestic partnership was dissolved, Joan Pablo Torres Campos, referred to as Torres in the court ruling, filed a request for shared custody of Kyra, who was living with Leslie Ann Munoz, Torres’ ex.
Munoz was being represented for free by her cousin Roxanne Chung Bonar, according to the court. Bonar wrote a letter to Torres’s attorney declining custody and visitation and citing two cases on the importance of maintaining stability and emotional well-being of parties in rulings. Neither case is real.
After proceedings before a court commissioner, Torres was directed to submit a proposed order reflecting the commissioner’s ruling from the bench. Torres filed a proposed order that relied on the fake cases, which the court approved. Torres later appealed the order, eventually pointing out that the two cases upon which the order relied appeared to be fabricated.
At first, Bonar insisted in court documents that both cases were legitimate, even producing fictitious citations to back her up. Eventually, it was revealed that the fake cases had been discussed in a Reddit article about pet custody battles. During oral argument, Bonar admitted that she was using online resources, including artificial intelligence, to conduct her legal research.
While the appeals court ruled against Torres, the justices also imposed $5,000 in sanctions against Bonar, pointing out that at first, she “doubled down” and produced fictitious citations that did not come from the Reddit article.
Neither David C. Beavans, Torres’ lawyer, nor Bonar immediately responded to requests for comment.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
