EFD USA, Inc. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc.
Key Findings
- Fabricated quotes are attributed to Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co. and Riverisland Cold Storage v. Fresno-Madera Prod. Credit Ass'n — both real California Supreme Court cases, but the quoted language does not appear in either opinion.
- Civil Code § 3288 is cited with a quote that does not appear in the statute.
- Eleven additional citations are potentially stretched beyond their holdings — pushing, not necessarily breaking.
Court Response
Disposition: Affirmed. The court separately imposed $900 in sanctions on attorney David Azar, payable to the clerk of the court, for fabricated citations in the opening and reply briefs.
In Section I of the opinion ("Inaccurate citations in EFD's appellate briefing"), the court identified fabricated quotations and misstatements of holdings in at least five cases. Lilienthal & Fowler v. Superior Court: the quoted language "does not appear in Lilienthal," and "contrary to EFD's assertion, the case does not address settlement offsets at all." Riverisland Cold Storage: "contains no such quotation, and it does not mention settlements, mediation, or arbitration." Leaf v. City of San Mateo: "does not include this quotation nor any similar language; it is a nuisance case and did not involve a contested contract." Rudick v. State Bd. of Optometry: "includes no such quotation." Milstein v. Sartain: "does not include this language." In a separate footnote, the court also noted misstatements of Dell'Oca and Dillingham. Azar acknowledged using AI to draft and shorten the briefs and accepted responsibility for the errors.
Comparison: Mixed. Opine's report matched the court on Riverisland (flagged ☠️ fabricated quote) and on Leaf (case rated accurate but its two quotes flagged significant). Opine rated Lilienthal as unavailable (could not verify), and rated Dillingham and Dell'Oca as accurate and minor-issue, respectively — the court flagged all three. Rudick and Milstein appear in the reply brief and were not within Opine's opening-brief analysis. Opine separately flagged additional citations the court did not address (Cortez v. Purolator, Civil Code § 3288, Altavion, McKenzie). The two analyses identified overlapping problems in the same brief from different starting points.
Every citation in the filing above was checked against the actual opinion or statute it claimed to cite. Fabricated items could not be verified to exist. Mischaracterized items are real cases described incorrectly. Potentially stretched items are real citations applied in ways that push beyond the holding — judgment calls rather than definitive errors.
Opine's citation verification currently covers California state courts and the 9th Circuit — the jurisdictions where our case-law and statute data is comprehensive.