Mendones v. Cushman (2025)

Case details
Full caption
Ariel Mendones, et al. v. Cushman and Wakefield et al
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
California (CA)
Court
California Supreme Court
Decided
2025
Disposition
Dismissed
!
Source redactions
The source document for this case contains redactions. They appear in the original file as published — this is not an error in the copy shown here.
1 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RENÉ C. DAVIDSON COURTHOUSE Ariel Mendones, et al., Plaintiff, et al., v. Cushman and Wakefield, Inc., et al., Defendant, et al. No.: 23CV028772 Order re Terminating Sanctions The order to show cause why terminating sanctions should not issue against Plaintiffs Ariel and Maridol Mendones for intentionally submitting false testimony to the Court in connection with their motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs not referred to the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution came on for hearing on September 9, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. The Court issued a tentative ruling, which Plaintiffs contested. Plaintiffs did not appear at the hearing and were not excused from appearing. Defendants’ counsel appeared. As the contesting party was not present, the Court affirms its tentative ruling and issues a terminating sanction against Plaintiffs for intentionally submitting false evidence to the Court in connection with their motion for summary judgment.
2 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 I. BACKGROUND On March 11, 2025, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment in this action. In support, Plaintiffs provided several documents as exhibits. Upon review, the Court suspected Plaintiffs’ exhibits 3, 6A, 6B, 6C, 7, 21, 27, 35, and 40 of having been altered or created by generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). For instance, exhibits 6A, 6C, and 36 purport to capture the speech and image of Geri Haas. But, while exhibit 36 appears to capture a real-life interaction, certain characteristics of exhibits 6A and 6C, such as the lack of facial expressions, the looping video feed, among other things, suggested that these exhibits were products of GenAI—i.e., “deepfakes.” On June 11, 2025, the Court issued a tentative ruling in connection with a case management conference, indicating its intent to issue an order to show cause with a hearing on July 8, 2025. At the hearing on June 12, 2025, the Court’s suspicion was reinforced when Maridol Mendones mentioned that some witnesses depicted in the suspect evidentiary submissions were deceased or could not be contacted by her. Maridol Mendones asked for the Court to set the hearing on the order to show cause in August 2025 to accommodate her and permit her time to seek legal counsel. On July 11, 2025, the Court issued the order to show cause why terminating sanctions should not issue against Plaintiffs for intentionally submitting false testimony to the Court in connection with their motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs not referred to the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution. The Court restates the relevant portions of that order: The Court issues an order to show cause why terminating sanctions should not issue against Plaintiffs for intentionally submitting false testimony to the Court in connection with their motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs not referred to the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution. The Court notes that some of the purported testimony submitted by Plaintiffs appears to be products of generative artificial intelligence. (Compare Pls.’ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 36 (capturing speech and image of Geri Haas), with Exs. 6A & 6C (purporting to capture speech and image Geri Haas); see also Exs. 3, 6B, 6C, 7, 21, 27, 35, 40.) The Court is also suspicious of the authenticity of other evidentiary submissions.
3 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 The Court is attentive to the issue of improper use of generative AI before it. (See, e.g., Evans v. Execushield, Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 10, 2025) 2025 WL 893084 (discussing the presentation of fake citations to the court by attorneys).) The Court is also attentive to the use of generative AI to create videos. (See, e.g., Jess Weatherbed, Judge berates AI entrepreneur for using a generated ‘lawyer’ in court, The Verge, Apr. 10, 2025, https://www.theverge.com/news/646372/ai-lawyer-artificial-avatar-new-york-court-case-video.) The Court further notes that California law provides that a person who “willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false . . . is guilty of perjury.” (Cal. Pen. Code § 118(a).) The Court directs Plaintiffs to submit a declaration, under penalty of perjury, answering the following questions, concisely and directly: 1. Were any of Plaintiffs’ evidentiary submissions created using generative artificial intelligence? 2. Were any of Plaintiffs’ evidentiary photographic submissions edited in any way? (See, e.g., Ex. 7.) 3. What is the messaging platform capturing the purported messages depicted in exhibits 35 and 40? Plaintiffs must provide all the metadata of the purported audio and video testimonials for “Salinas” (Ex. 3), Barbara Clark (Ex. 6D), Juliann Smith (Ex. 27), Geri Haas (Exs. 6A & 6C), Sarah Davis (Ex. 6B), and an unidentified person (Ex. 21). Please include the file format, date created, date modified, file type, identity of device capturing video, lens used, shutter speed, file type, and the like. Please also identify the operator of the camera that captured the purported video testimonials noted above. Plaintiffs must also provide the metadata and certificates for the electronic signatures of the declarations of Barbara Clark, Juliann Smith, Debra Daniels, Caroline Scott, Geri Haas, and Sarah Davis. The Court may also order the in-person appearance of “Salinas,” Barbara Clark, Juliann Smith, Geri Has, Sarah Davis, the unidentified person in exhibit 21, Cristy Moore, Jane Johnson, Rose Torres, Allen Whistley, and any other person identified in the suspect evidentiary submissions. The Court sets a hearing for August 12, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. on the order to show cause. All parties must appear in-person at this hearing. The Court orders both Ariel Mendones and Maridol Mendones to separately submit a declaration stating under penalty of perjury addressing the three questions, noted above. The requested metadata and certificates for each of the purported audio and video testimonials, and the filed declarations, must be attached as exhibits to the declaration. The declarations must be limited to 5 pages, excluding the caption page and the requested metadata and certificates.
4 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 The declarations must be filed and served no later than July 29, 2025. The Court will deem any failure to file a declaration addressing each of these issues as conceding that their evidentiary submissions were created using generative AI or were altered to depict something that did not actually happen. (OSC re Terminating Sanctions, July 11, 2025.) On July 29, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their declarations. (See Pls.’ Decls., July 29, 2025.) II. LEGAL STANDARD “By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an . . . unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met: (1) “The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law. (2) “The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. (3) “The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(b).) “If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.” (§ 128.7(c).) “In determining what sanctions, if any, should be ordered, the court shall consider whether a party seeking sanctions has exercised due diligence.” (Id.) “A sanction imposed for violation of
7 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 volume, word choice, pauses, gestures, and facial expression, among other characteristics, of the person depicted in exhibit 36 are vastly different from those demonstrated by the “persons” depicted in exhibits 6A and 6C. The “persons” depicted in exhibits 6A and 6C lack expressiveness, are monotone, do not pause at moments where pauses are expected, use odd words choices, and appear generally robotic. Further, the mouth flap does not match the words being spoken. Juxtaposing these three videos together, it becomes clear that whoever the “persons” depicted in exhibits 6A and 6C are, they are not the person depicted in exhibit 36. The oddities of exhibits 6A and 6C are typical features of videos created by GenAI. 2. Exhibit 7 The Court finds that exhibit 7 was materially altered. Here is a screenshot of exhibit 7, page 2:
8 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 Here is a screenshot of exhibit 7, page 3: / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
9 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 Here is a screenshot of exhibit 7, page 5: The lighting, contrast, color, and sharpness of the man depicted in these pictures compared with the lighting, contrast, color, and sharpness of the background shows that the man was stitched into the photograph taken by the Ring camera. A close inspection shows that the background is in black and white, while the man is in color. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
13 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 In their declaration, Plaintiffs stated that the messaging platform in exhibit 35 is Instagram and exhibit 40 is a Zoom iPhone group chat. These statements strain credulity: Looking at the menu bar on the lower part of the images, it is clear to this Court that exhibits 35 and 40 seem to depict the same messaging platform. Further, the font style, spacing, and sizing appear off on exhibit 40, suggesting the names and messages were altered. 4. Metadata The Court did not find the metadata submitted by Plaintiffs reliable or credible. For instance, the information contained above the “General” field of the MacOS Inspector on pages 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 48, 49, 51, 52, 59, 60, and 61, contains information not typically noted in metadata, such as “Copyright [entity]. All rights reserved.” Other portions of the metadata included URLs to Google Maps, phone numbers, GPS coordinates, mailing addresses, and other atypical information within the “musical genre” field. (See id. at pp. 12–15, 37, 42–47.) The Court suspects that material metadata was added at some later point in time by someone with access to the files and with editing privileges. 5. Plaintiffs’ Explanations The Court did not find Plaintiffs’ explanations in their respective declarations to be credible. Notably, in response to the first question, Maridol Mendones declared that artificial intelligence was used in all videos marked as exhibits 6A to 6D. (Pls.’ Decls. at 3:23–26.) Maridol Mendones sought to shift the blame to Geri Haas for providing her with this video testimonial. (See id. at 3:13–4:3.) Her explanation, however, is not credible: Assuming the veracity of the metadata, exhibit 6A was captured on an Apple iPhone 6 Plus using its rear camera and running iOS 12.5.5. (See id. at p. 16.) Here’s the problem for Maridol Mendones: Apple did not introduce Apple Intelligence until iOS18 and required an iPhone 16, iPhone 15 Pro, or iPhone 15 Pro Max. (See Apple Inc., Apple
14 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 Intelligence, https://www.apple.com/apple-intelligence/ (last visited September. 5, 2025.) (“Apple Intelligence is available in beta on all iPhone 16 models, iPhone 15 Pro, iPhone 15 Pro Max, iPad mini (A17 Pro), and iPad and Mac models with M1 and later, with Siri and device language set to the same supported language, as part of an iOS 18, iPadOS 18, and macOS Sequoia software update.”).) As such, Maridol Mendones explanation about why the person depicted in exhibit 6A is robotic is unbelievable. 6. Lingering Suspicions The Court remains suspicious of the other evidentiary submissions, but it does not have the time, funding, or technical expertise to determine the authenticity of Plaintiffs’ statements or conduct a forensic analysis of the suspect evidentiary submissions. Exhibit Plaintiffs’ Description Plaintiffs’ Link 3 “Voicemail messages of Defendant-Salinas dated December 27 to 29, 2022. Third parties mocking voicemail messages.” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fqjOfTxKbJmG_7LodDKkFWB-KpxgTWGz/view?usp=sharing 6B “Corroborated video testimony of Sarah Davis secondary to Geri Haas’ declaration dated January 13, 2023.” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mnASOgTl7sIrg-OLVKMI95Elyz_ySqOa/view?usp=sharing 21 “Voicemail message of Defendant-Salinas dated December 29, 2022, stating that they will waive their false https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vmm9HxQwJ521rDWBPWTXy0Og_N7yMgne/view?usp=sharing
15 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 allegations if the video footage will be sent to them via email.” 27 “Dr. Juliann Smith’s testimonies with two corroborating witnesses dated July 30, 2024 at 2:35 p.m.” https://drive.google.com/file/d/12xnrtMiTyP_B5abHeZM2ycYwg9MaDAcd/view?usp=sharing The Court has downloaded copies of these exhibits to preserve the evidence. B. Appropriate Sanction The Court next turns to the appropriate sanction. In determining the appropriate sanction, the Court is guided by section 128.7(d)’s guidance that “[a] sanction imposed for violation of subdivision (b) shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of this conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” (§ 128.7(d).) 1. Monetary Sanctions The Court finds that monetary sanctions are not appropriate. The Court is attentive to the issue of improper use of GenAI before it. (See, e.g., Evans v. Execushield, Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 10, 2025) 2025 WL 893084 (discussing the presentation of fake citations to the court by attorneys).) The misuse of GenAI in legal proceedings most frequently happens in the context of presenting fictitious citations. (See U.S. v. Hayes (E.D. Cal. 2025) 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054.) In that context, appropriate sanctions include (1) penalties payable to the court in the range of $1,000.00 to $5,000.00, (2) sending a copy of the order to the client, (3) sending a copy of the order to each judge falsely identified as the author of a fake opinion, (4) sending a copy of the order to all the district judges and magistrate judges in the district, and (5) sending a copy of the order to the relevant bar association. (Id. at 1073; see also Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023) 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 466 (imposing similar sanctions); Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., May
16 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 19, 2025, No. 23-CV-04597-EMC) 2025 WL 1447380, at *7 (“At this juncture, the Court shall not impose any sanctions. However, it forewarns Ms. Gjovik that (1) she is responsible for verifying the accuracy of AI-generated or AI-provided information, including but not limited to case citations and content, and that (2) failure to do so may lead to sanctions, including but not limited to a finding of contempt and/or the ability to proceed pro se.”).) The reasons for imposing these sanctions were captured by the Hayes court: “Submitting fictitious cases and quotations to the court ‘degrades or impugns the integrity of the Court’ and ‘interferes with the administration of justice’ in violation of Local Rule 180(e), and violates California Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1(a)(2), 3.3(a)(1), and 3.3(a)(2).” (See also Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d at 1064.) Here, the use of GenAI went beyond the submission of fictitious citations. Plaintiffs submitted at least two exhibits created by GenAI. Further, to an even greater extent than expressed by the Hayes court, the use of deepfakes in a case significantly undermines the Court’s ability to administer justice, significantly erodes the public’s confidence in the judicial system, and significantly burdens under-resourced and overworked courts with the time-consuming task of assessing whether evidence presented to it during pretrial proceedings was a deepfake. As such, a more severe sanction is appropriate. 2. Non-monetary Sanctions i. Referral to District Attorney for Prosecution The Court finds that referral for criminal prosecution is not appropriate. Plaintiffs’ submission of fabricated evidence brings to the Court’s mind two Penal Code statutes. The first statute concerns perjury: Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by
17 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury. (Cal. Pen. Code § 118(a).) “Perjury is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three or four years.” (§ 126.) The second statute concerns forgery: Every person who, with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so, signs the name of another person or of a fictitious person to any of the items listed in subdivision (d) is guilty of forgery. (§ 470(a).) “Forgery is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.” (§ 473(a).) The Court finds that a sanction referring Plaintiffs for criminal prosecution is simultaneously too severe and not sufficiently remedial. The sanction is too severe as even being the subject of a criminal investigation may lead to social repercussions that persist after the criminal proceedings close. This civil judicial officer does not have the expertise and experience to balance all relevant considerations to determine whether a matter should be referred to the District Attorney for a criminal investigation. At the same time, a referral would do little to address the harm that Plaintiffs have caused in this civil proceeding. ii. Evidence or Issue Sanctions The Court finds that evidence or issue sanctions are not appropriate. This sanction would not serve an adequate deterrent against future uses. As illustrated above, examining whether evidentiary submissions were created using GenAI is labor intensive, and courts (really, the public at large) are not adequately prepared to discern whether a person depicted in a video was created using GenAI. (See, e.g., Shannon Bond, AI-generated images are everywhere. Here's how to spot them, NPR (June 13, 2023), https://www.npr.org/2023/06/07/1180768459/how-to-identify-ai-generated-deepfake-images.) While an evidentiary or issue sanction would exclude some things that can be
18 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 shown to be created by GenAI, others might sneak through the Court’s or opposing party’s analysis. Without robust safeguards to guard against future misuses of the legal proceedings, an evidentiary or issue sanction is effectively toothless. iii. Terminating Sanction The Court finds that a terminating sanction is appropriate. This sanction is proportional to the harm that Plaintiffs’ misuse of the Court’s processes has caused. A terminating sanction serves the appropriate remedial effect of denying Plaintiffs— and other litigants seeking to make use of GenAI to submit video testimonials—of the ability to further prosecute this action after violating the Court’s and the Defendants’ trust so egregiously. (See R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 486, 497 (The Civil Discovery Act “authorizes terminating sanctions in the first instance in egregious cases.”).) Further, a terminating sanction serves the appropriate deterrent effect of showing the public that the Court has zero tolerance with attempting to pass deepfakes as evidence. This sanction serves the appropriately chilling message to litigants appearing before this Court: Use GenAI in court with great caution. As the Court cannot disentangle the extent to which Ariel Mendones was active or complicit in Maridol Mendones’s actions in connection with the violation of section 128.7(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that both parties must be sanctions equally. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
19 Order re Terminating Sanctions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 IV. ORDERS The Court strikes the second amended complaint from the register of actions. The entire action is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: Victoria Kolakowski Judge of the Superior Court 9/9/2025
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF ALAMEDACOURTHOUSE ADDRESS: Rene C. Davidson Courthouse 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:Ariel Mendones et alDEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:Cushman and Wakefield, Inc. et alReserved for Clerk’s File StampCERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1010.6CASE NUMBER:23CV028772Chad Finke, Executive Officer / Clerk of the CourtDated: 09/10/2025By:CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1010.6I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of Court of the above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not a party to the cause herein, and that on this date I served one copy of the Order re: Terminating Sanctions entered herein upon each party or counsel of record in the above entitled action, by electronically serving the document(s) from my place of business, in accordance with standard court practices.Ariel Mendones mendonesa8@gmail.comMark L. Dawson Dawson Law Offices, Inc. mdawson@dawsonlawoffices.com
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF ALAMEDACOURTHOUSE ADDRESS: Rene C. Davidson Courthouse 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:Ariel Mendones et alDEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:Cushman and Wakefield, Inc. et alReserved for Clerk’s File StampCERTIFICATE OF MAILINGCASE NUMBER:23CV028772Chad Finke, Executive Officer / Clerk of the CourtDated: 09/10/2025By:CERTIFICATE OF MAILINGI, the below-named Executive Officer/Clerk of the above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not a party to the cause herein, and that on this date I served the attached document upon each party or counsel named below by placing the document for collection and mailing so as to cause it to be deposited in the United States mail at the courthouse in Oakland, California, one copy of the original filed/entered herein in a separate sealed envelope to each address as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid, in accordance with standard court practices.Ariel Mendones 2416 W Tennyson Rd,Apt 298 Hayward, CA 94545Maridol Mendones 2416 W Tennyson Rd Apt 298 Hayward, CA 94545
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access