DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV04836·santabarbara·Civil·Civil Law & Motion
Hearing 3 months agoSatisfactory explanation provided

Robert Ottinger v Paul P Weishaar et al

Hearing re Further Explanation re Defendant's Moving Papers

Hearing date
Jun 1, 2026
Department
Anderle
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffRobert Ottinger
DefendantPaul P. Weishaar
DefendantPPW Motorcars, LLC

Attorneys

Robert Ottingerfor Plaintiff
Andrew Wyattfor Defendant

Ruling

Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Mon, 06/01/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Hearing re Further Explanation re Defendant's Moving Papers Tentative Ruling Plaintiffs: Robert Ottinger Defendants: Andrew Wyatt Issue Hearing re Further Explanation re Defendant's Moving Papers

In response to the court's further inquiry regarding the misdescription of the terms of the forum selection provision contained in defendants' motion to quash, counsel for Defendants Paul P. Weishaar and PPW Motorcars, LLC, filed a second declaration of attorney Andrew M. Wyatt and of paralegal Junnie Verceles. As explained in these declarations, the misdescription was the result of AI generated content provided by Wyatt's client which was incorporated into the motion without correction through a series of mishaps.

With this explanation, the Court is satisfied that the misdescription was not the result of any knowing or intentional misrepresentation to the Court. Counsel is ultimately responsible for the content of papers filed with the Court under his signature. Counsel is reminded of his ethical obligations to ensure the accuracy of statements made in Court papers. Having learned a new and insidious way in which AI content can damage the integrity of Court proceedings, the Court finds this learning process and the Court's admonishment to counsel sufficient to resolve the Court's concerns without further proceedings.

The Court vacates its order for counsel to appear at this hearing, so no appearances are necessary for any party.

Tentative Ruling: Devin Rose v. ARGO5, LLC Tentative Ruling: Devin Rose v. ARGO5, LLC

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share