TQJ, LLC v. Esquivel (Feb. 12, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
TQJ, LLC v. Jennifer Esquivel et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Feb. 12, 2026
TQJ, LLC v. Jennifer Esquivel et al., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 395737Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, C.D. California.TQJ, LLCv.Jennifer Esquivel et al.Case No.: 2:25-cv-09673-BFM|Filed 02/12/2026Editor'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.Attorneys and Law FirmsChristianna Howard, Deputy Clerk, Attorneys Present forPlaintiff N/AN/A, Court Reporter / Recorder, Attorneys Present forDefendant N/ARichard L. B. Charnley, Charnley Rian LLP, Marina del Rey,CA, for TQJ, LLC.Deborah A. Peacock, Pro Hac Vice, Troy Lawton, Pro HacVice, Peacock Law PC, Albuquerque, NM, Kevin RyanBehrendt, Dermer Behrendt, Los Angeles, CA, for JenniferEsquivel.Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show CauseThe Honorable Brianna Fuller Mircheff, United StatesMagistrate Judge*1 Plaintiff filed this copyright action in October 2025.Defendant filed an Answer that included counterclaims (ECF10) and later filed amended counterclaims (ECF 22). Plaintiffmoved to dismiss the copyright-related counterclaims. (ECF24.) In reviewing the Plaintiff's filings, the Court identifiedfour citations offered by Plaintiff in its Reply that do not exist.Specifically, the Court was unable to locate the followingcitations in Westlaw or any other legal database:• Lewis v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 2011 WL 2680778,at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 8, 2011), cited for theproposition that “editorial suggestions/feedback [are]not protectable.” (ECF 28 at 4.) While there is a Lewisv. Activision Blizzard case, it is a case out of theNorthern District of California, and it does not discusswhether edits or feedback are copyrightable. See Lewisv. Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. C 12–1096 CW, 2013WL 5663103 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013). The “2011 WL”cite from the brief points to a case out of the New YorkSupreme Court.• Kogan v. Martin, 2019 WL 4750414, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.Sept. 30, 2019), is cited for the proposition that“suggestions and critiques are insufficient” to beconsidered a derivative work. (ECF 28 at 4.) The Courtcould not find any case called “Kogan v. Martin” in anyjurisdiction, and the “2019 WL” cite does not point toany case citation.• Muller v. Triborough Bridge, 43 F. Supp. 2d 372,379 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), is cited for the proposition that“ideas and recommendations, even if helpful, are notcopyrightable.” (ECF 28 at 4.) That citation pointsto a case called United States v. De La Paz, whichadjudicated a suppression motion. There is a case calledMuller v. Triborough Bridge, 43 F. Supp. 298 (1942), butas far as the Court can tell, it says nothing relevant tothis Motion.• Steele v. County of San Mateo, 2021 WL 917867 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 10, 2021), proffered as stating “Plaintiffcannot amend the Complaint through arguments in anopposition brief.” (ECF 28 at 6.) The “2021 WL” citedoes not return any case, the Court could not find a casecalled “Steele v. County of San Mateo,” and the closestthing to this quote is only found in a Northern Districtof Ohio case.Counsel who appeared at the hearing, Richard Charnley, isthe person who signed the brief under his name, and his namealone. At the hearing on the Motion, the Court asked Mr.Charnley about the nonexistent citations and whether he oranyone at his firm used generative AI to assist with draftingits papers. Mr. Charnley stated that he wrote the brief, that hedid not use generative AI in preparing the brief, and that hewas not aware that anyone in his firm used such technology.
TQJ, LLC v. Jennifer Esquivel et al., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2He offered to investigate the issue but otherwise had noexplanation for the nonexistent citations offered in the Reply.The Court is troubled by these facts. Three of the four citeswere proffered as authority on a point that, in the Court's view,appears to be underdeveloped in the caselaw. The hallucinatedcitations wasted the Court's limited resources, requiring theCourt and chamber's staff to hunt for authority for the relevantpropositions, and to go back and check whether the rest of theauthority proffered by Plaintiff is reliable. That Mr. Charnleyhad no explanation for the inclusion of these citations—orapparently even an awareness that they were present in thebrief—is equally troubling; it suggests he did not review theauthority cited before he filed the Reply under his signatureor before he appeared to argue the Motion.*2 No later than February 19, 2026, Mr. Charnley isordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned(either monetarily, or by the striking of his pleading)under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, or the Court's inherentauthority to impose sanctions. Mr. Charnley's response shouldinclude an explanation for the inclusion of nonexistent legalcitations, should explain whether there are any other citesor propositions in any of his filings to date that should bewithdrawn, and should describe what steps he is taking toensure such a mistake does not recur. Defendant may file aresponse no later than February 26, 2026, if she chooses to.At the hearing, Mr. Charnley stated he intended to file asupplemental brief with additional authorities in lieu of theones presented in the Reply. That request is denied. The timeto provide such authority was the Reply and Plaintiff will notbe rewarded with a second bite at the apple. Once the Courtreceives counsel's response to this OSC, the Court will decidewhat steps to take with respect to the Motion and with respectto sanctions.IT IS SO ORDEREDcc: Counsel of RecordInitials of Preparer: chAll CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 395737End 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