Ding v. City of San Diego
Chu Ding v. City of San Diego, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
Defendants filed motions to dismiss and requests for judicial notice relying on two specific case citations. The court ordered Defendants to file copies of the cited authorities, a declaration attesting to their source, and a statement regarding the use of generative AI.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order directing Defendants to file copies of cited authorities and a declaration“The Court therefore directs Defendants to provide copies of the cited authorities with the relevant passages highlighted.” | agree with court The court's action is procedurally sound. The citations provided by Defendants (specifically '78 F Ath 1322' for an 11th Circuit case) appear to be erroneous or hallucinated, as 'F Ath' is not a standard reporter abbreviation for the Federal Reporter, and the court explicitly states it could not locate the authorities. Requiring verification of sources is a standard judicial response to potentially fabricated or erroneous citations. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural directive rather than a substantive ruling on the merits of the motions to dismiss. It correctly identifies that the court could not verify the existence or content of the cited authorities and imposes a reasonable burden on the moving party to substantiate their citations. The inclusion of a requirement to disclose AI use is a responsive measure to the apparent citation errors.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
possible bias possible biasOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 CHU DING, Case No.: 25-cv-01683-AJB-JLB 13 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS 14 v. TO FILE COPIES OF CITED AUTHORITIES ALONG WITH A 15 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., DECLARATION ATTESTING TO 16 Defendants. THEIR SOURCE 17 18 On September 3, 2025, Defendants City of San Diego, Jonathan Ferraro, Patrick 19 Richards, Emilee Emamjomeh, James Ealson, Scott Wahl, and Does 1–25 filed motions to 20 dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 14-1; 15-1.) Defendants included substantively identical “Request[s] 21 for Judicial Notice/Incorporation by Reference in Support of their Motions to Dismiss” 22 with their Motions. (Doc. Nos. 14-2; 15-2.) In support of their Requests, Defendants rely 23 in part on two cases. Defendants state: 24 In the specific context of body-worn camera footage, the Ninth Circuit has permitted reliance on video where the complaint itself references the footage 25 and authenticity is undisputed. J.K.J. v. City of San Diego, 93 F.4th 1061, 26 1071–72 (9th Cir. 2024).
27 28 (Doc. Nos. 14-2 at 5; 15-2 at 5.) Defendants also say: 1 Other circuits have adopted a more pragmatic approach, recognizing that district courts may consider video evidence at dismissal where it clearly contradicts the pleadings. See, e.g., Davis v. City of Apopka, 78 F Ath 1322, 3 1328-29 (11th Cir. 2023) (relying on body-camera video at 12(b)(6) to reject 4 allegations contradicted by footage). 5 ||(Doc. Nos. 14-2 at 6; 15-2 at 6). 6 Using Westlaw and Lexis, the Court has attempted to locate the cited authorities and 7 || any passages contained therein that support Defendants’ propositions. The Court has not 8 able to do so. The Court therefore directs Defendants to provide copies of the cited 9 || authorities with the relevant passages highlighted. 10 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to file copies of the cited authorities 11 AKU. v. City of San Diego, 93 F.4th 1061 (9th Cir. 2024),” and “Davis v. City of Apopka, 12 || 78 F.4th 1322 (11th Cir. 2023),” along with a declaration attesting to their source (e.g., 13 || website, reporter, court docket) no later than October 9, 2025. Finally, counsel’s 14 |/declaration must state whether generative AI was used in writing the Motions and 15 || Requests. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: October 2, 2025 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28