Quinteros v. Harbor Distrib., LLC, 2026 WL 1693424 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Here we go again. The lawyers representing the plaintiffs in this putative wage and hour class action were responsible for “evident misuse of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in an otherwise meritless pleading.” The trial court ordered the attorneys to pay $5,000 in sanctions to the opposing party and $1,000 in sanctions to the court pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7 based on a brief they filed containing “non-existent citations, fabricated quotations, and seriously misrepresent[ed] controlling authority.” The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the procedural challenges to the order had been forfeited because they were not raised below in the trial court, and the substantive challenge (the “punishment does not fit the crime”) was meritless. Compare Amezcua v. Superior Court, 120 Cal. App. 5th 116 (2026) (trial court erroneously ordered fee shifting from plaintiff to defendant pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a) to penalize plaintiff’s delay in seeking to amend complaint).