Samuel K. v. Focia (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Samuel K. v. Winsley Focia
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
California (CA)
Court
California Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Disposition
Dismissed
Majority
Richardson (J.) (unanimous Court)
SAMUEL K., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WINSLEY..., Not Reported in... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 539183Not Officially Published(Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110, 8.1115)Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115, restrictscitation of unpublished opinions in California courts.NOT TO BE PUBLISHED INTHE OFFICIAL REPORTSCourt of Appeal, Second District, California.DIVISION TWO.SAMUEL K., Plaintiff and Respondent,v.WINSLEY FOCIA, Defendant and Appellant.B346730|Filed 2/26/2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los AngelesCounty, Latrice A.G. Byrdsong, Judge. Dismissed. (LosAngeles County Super. Ct. No. 24STRO08015)Attorneys and Law FirmsWinsley Focia, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.OpinionGILBERT*, J.*1 Defendant and appellant Winsley Focia appeals,in propria persona, from a one-year domestic violencerestraining order (DVRO) issued against her, pursuant to theDomestic Violence Protection Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code, §6200 et seq.). Because her unopposed opening brief reliesalmost entirely on false or inapposite legal authorities, wedismiss the appeal.BACKGROUNDFocia and Samuel K. (Samuel)1 were in a relationship forseveral years.On October 31, 2024, Samuel filed a petition requesting aDVRO against Focia, attaching (1) a declaration describingan incident in which Focia had “broke[n] into his apartmentand threatened to kill herself[ ]”; (2) a transcript of a video ofthat incident; (3) text messages; and (4) a phone log.2On January 13, 2025, the matter proceeded to a contestedhearing. In addition to his petition and exhibits, Samueloffered testimony. He claimed that Focia would “habitually”get drunk and physically attack him, including by “shoving”him and “hit[ting] [him] in the face[.]” On one occasion, Fociashowed up uninvited at Samuel's apartment; a transcript ofvideo taken that night indicates that Focia “told [Samuel] totake her to the hospital or she was going to hurt herself.”Focia later told Samuel “that the next time she saw [him] outsomewhere, she would get a guy to jump [Samuel] and toattack [him].” Samuel testified that he could not block Fociafrom contacting him, as she “would call [him] from othernumbers, sometimes hundreds of times[.]”Focia testified that her relationship with Samuel was“mutually toxic and incompatible[,]” claiming that he hadalso been abusive towards her at times. But Focia admittedthat she may have punched Samuel after drinking; she usedphysical force when she “felt like [she] had to[;]”; shehad threatened to kill herself; and she did threaten to haveSamuel jumped, but “was only saying that in the heat of themoment[.]”The trial court issued a one-year restraining order againstFocia, explaining that “based ... on the record before the courtin addition to [Focia's] own admissions here today underoath, ... there's been physical abuse in terms of pushing, ofhitting. There's been verbal abuse by [Focia] ... as well as aseries of calls that can be abusive in the fact that they areunwanted and could disturb one's peace.”Focia timely appealed.DISCUSSION
SAMUEL K., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WINSLEY..., Not Reported in... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2Focia's opening brief, which contains numerous fabricatedlegal citations, appears to have been prepared usinggenerative artificial intelligence (AI) software. (Noland v.Land of the Free, L.P. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 426, 443(Noland) [“ ‘[F]alse citations’ ” are “ ‘hallmarks of an’ ” AI“ ‘tool[.]’ ”.) Focia's use of AI is not itself an issue; litigantsmay use any tool at their disposal to compose their briefs. ButFocia's “extensive reliance” on falsified and inapposite legalauthorities necessarily dooms her appeal. (Id. at p. 436.)*2 In total, Focia's opening brief contains 12 quotations, 11of which are fabrications. Several of these fake quotationsare attributed to nonexistent cases. For example, Focia citesMedical Board v. Superior Court (2022) 88 Cal.App.5th 459,475 (Medical Board) for the propositions that “ ‘[i]n high-stakes civil hearings, due process requires confrontation ofthe actual evidence[ ]’ ”; “ ‘[i]n liberty-depriving hearings,due process requires advisement of the dangers of self-representation[ ]’ ”; and “ ‘[c]ross-examination of adversewitnesses is constitutionally required in high-stakes civilproceedings.’ ” (Bolding omitted.) No case titled “MedicalBoard v. Superior Court” was published in 2022; thereporter citations given by Focia correspond to two inappositecriminal cases published the following year (People v.Venable (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 445, People v. Sedano (2023)88 Cal.App.5th 474); and the above quotations do not appearin any case, published or nonpublished. “Medical Board,” andthe quotes taken from it, appear to be “AI ‘hallucinations[.]’” (Noland, supra, 114 Cal.App.5th at p. 431.)Furthermore, Focia's “brief[ ] [is] peppered with inaccuratecitations that do not support the propositions for which theyare cited.” (Noland, supra, 114 Cal.App.5th at p. 436.) In oneinstance, Focia cites People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395,475, as holding that “ ‘[a]dmitting a transcript without theoriginal recording is reversible error.’ ” (Bolding omitted.)Not only does the quotation not exist, but the Panah courtreached the opposite conclusion. (Ibid. [admitting descriptivetestimony in lieu of recordings was harmless error].)This is unacceptable. “Simply stated, no brief, pleading,motion, or any other paper filed in any court should containany citations—whether provided by generative AI or anyother source—that the [person] responsible for submittingthe pleading has not personally read and verified.” (Noland,supra, 114 Cal.App.5th at p. 431.)Although Noland involved an attorney submitting legalfabrications on his client's behalf, its prohibition against falsecitations applies equally to self-represented litigants. (Peoplev. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1000 [“Self-represented[parties] are ‘held to the same standard of knowledge of lawand procedure as is an attorney[.]’ ”]; Rappleyea v. Campbell(1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 985 [“A doctrine generally requiringor permitting exceptional treatment of parties who representthemselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, andwould be unfair to the other parties to litigation.”].)“[E]xtensive reliance on nonexistent legal authority ...justif[ies] striking appellant's opening brief or dismissing theappeal. [Citations.]”3 (Noland, supra, 114 Cal.App.5th at p.436.) Because Focia's opening brief relies almost completelyon fabricated and inapposite legal authority, we dismiss herappeal.DISPOSITIONThe appeal is dismissed. Focia to bear her own costs onappeal.NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTSWe concur:CHAVEZ, Acting P. J.RICHARDSON, J.All CitationsNot Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2026 WL 539183Footnotes
SAMUEL K., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WINSLEY..., Not Reported in... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3*Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justicepursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.1“To protect [his] personal privacy interests,” we refer to the “protected person[ ] in [this] domestic violence-prevention proceeding[ ]” by his first name and last initial. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(1).)2Because the record does not contain Samuel's petition, supporting declaration, or exhibits, we summarizethese materials according to how they are characterized in the reporter's transcript.3In Noland, the appellate court nonetheless exercised its discretion to reach the merits of the appellant'sarguments because “nothing indicate[d] that [she] was aware that her counsel had fabricated legal authority,and [the opposing party] addressed [her] contentions on the merits[.]” (Noland, supra, 114 Cal.App.5th at p.436.) Neither consideration exists here, where Focia submitted fabricated authorities on her own behalf andSamuel offered no response to her frivolous brief.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
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