Andrew Seko

Why this case is important:

This can help your clients understand that even if they are representing themselves:

• They must follow California’s Rules of Court by only providing true and correct case citations. This means they must not cite to AI (artificial intelligence) hallucinations. They may only cite real cases and must provide correct quotations and summaries of such cases.
• They must accurately reference their case history and provide the location in the record on appeal of the case history they write about in their briefs.
• They must format their briefs in accordance with California’s Rules of Court.
• They may be sanctioned for unreasonable violations of the Rules of Court, including citing to cases that are AI hallucinations.

Summary of the case:

In this case an ex-wife appealed a trial court order modifying child support payments owed by her ex-husband. The ex-husband, who was self-represented, cited cases that do not exist and fabricated quotes that do not appear in real cases in his respondent’s brief. Also, his brief referenced hearings in his case that did not appear in the case’s record, included unsupported irrelevant factual assertions and was formatted incorrectly. In response to ex-wife’s motion to strike the respondent’s brief, ex-husband explained he used an AI tool to draft the respondent’s brief and did not verify his citations nor knowingly submit false information to the court.

The Court found ex-husband, although self-represented, should be held to the same standard as an attorney and thus was obligated to submit briefing that did not include false and missing citations. The Court also found that it could impose monetary sanctions against ex-husband because of his unreasonable violations of the Rules of Court. However, the Court chose not to sanction ex-husband because he admitted his error and the Court believed sanctions would not be in the best interest of the children at the heart of the underlying proceeding.

The precedential part of the opinion can be helpful in admonishing all litigants, including abusers, that their filings need to comply with the rules of court and be checked for accuracy to avoid AI hallucinations.

View the full Case Alert for practice tips. | View the Published Opinion.

Why this case is important:

• This is the first California appellate decision to expressly hold that a survivor does NOT need to prove their abuser intended to threaten, harm, or intimidate them in order for them to prove abuse happened, and to get a restraining order.
• This case reaffirms a point of law important for DVRO cases: For an initial DVRO, the survivor does NOT need to show a “probability of future abuse”; they only need to prove past abuse.
• Also, if you or your client are appealing the denial of a DVRO request or other DVRO relief, you can use this case to argue that the Court of Appeal should not only reverse the denial but also remand (send back to the trial court) with instructions to grant the DVRO or other relief.

Summary of the Case

In this case, R.R. sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against his ex-wife C.R., with whom he has a child. R.R. filed for divorce in 2020 and then filed a request for a DVRO in 2024 based on C.R.’s escalating pattern of abuse, including stalking him “almost daily” and sending him threatening messages. For instance, C.R. followed R.R. while was driving with their child, C.R. rang R.R.’s doorbell incessantly at all hours of the day and night, and C.R. threatened to disparage R.R. to his employer. At the hearing on R.R.’s DVRO request, the trial court found that although C.R. acted in the ways R.R. testified, her actions weren’t abuse under the law because R.R. did not present enough evidence that she intentionally tried to threaten or intimidate him.

The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court erred when it said that R.R. needed to prove C.R.’s intent in order to prove abuse happened and a DVRO was needed. The appellate court also explained that R.R. did not need to prove any probability of future abuse, because an initial DVRO requires only past abuse. Because of the undisputed evidence of C.R.’s abuse, and the trial court’s express findings about C.R.’s actions, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial and remanded the case back to the trial court to issue R.R. his DVRO against C.R.

View the full Case Alert for practice tips. | View the Published Opinion.