Balubhai Patel v. City of Buena Park et al

C.D. California

Balubhai Patel v. City of Buena Park et al

DecidedMay 18, 2026

Docket8:25-cv-02608

StatusUnknown

This text of Balubhai Patel v. City of Buena Park et al (Balubhai Patel v. City of Buena Park et al) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Balubhai Patel v. City of Buena Park et al, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 8:25-cv-02608-JVS-KES Date May 18, 2026 Title Balubhai Patel v. City of Buena Park et al

Present: The Honorable James V. Selna, U.S. District Court Judge Elsa Vargas Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] Order to Show Cause re. Rule 11 Sanctions

On April 22, 2026, Plaintiff Balabuhai Patel (“Patel”) filed an opposition to Defendant City of Buena Park’s (“Buena Park” or “City”) motion to dismiss Patel’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Opp’n, Dkt. No. 23; see Mot., Dkt. No. 22.) Buena Park replied. (Reply, Dkt. No. 26.) In reviewing Patel’s memorandum in opposition to Buena Park’s motion to dismiss the SAC, the Court found several instances of misquotes and miscites: Citation to “Curtis. Collins & Holbrook Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 175, 186 (1911),” for which the reporter number corresponds to United States v. Munday, 222 U.S. 175 (1911). Neither Munday nor Curtis, properly cited at 262 U.S. 215 (1923), contain the quoted material nor discuss takings, as the citation suggests. (See Opp’n at 3-4; Reply at 6.) Citation to “Weinberg v. Whatcom County, 762 F.2d 711, 714 (9th Cir. 1985),” for which the reporter number corresponds to Composite Technology, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 762 F.2d 708 (8th Cir. 1985). Yet Composite Technology does not contain the pincite Patel cites to, nor does it discuss 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the citation suggests. Further, Weinberg, properly cited at 241 F.3d 746 (2001), discusses Washington, not California law, failing to support Patel’s argument. (See Opp’n at 9-10; Reply at 6-7.) The Court notes that these inaccurate citations are copied and pasted directly from Patel’s previous memorandum in opposition to Buena Park’s first motion to dismiss. (See Dkt. No. 12.) In its order on the first motion to dismiss, this Court admonished Patel for these inaccurate legal citations and stated that it would consider sanctions, including dismissal, if he failed to correct such issues in future filings. (See Order, Dkt.

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 8:25-cv-02608-JVS-KES Date May 18, 2026 Title Balubhai Patel v. City of Buena Park et al No. 14 n.1.) Buena Park seeks disqualification on the basis of Plaintiff’s repeated—and identical—inaccuracies. (See Reply at 11-12.) The Court orders Patel and its counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for repeatedly misquoting and misciting cases in Patel’s memorandum in opposition to Buena Park’s motion to dismiss the SAC. The signatory to the memo, Frank A. Weiser, shall appear personally before the Court. A written response shall be filed not later than noon on May 22, 2026. Counsel shall specifically state whether AI was used in whole or in part to prepare the memorandum. The matter will be heard at 1:30p.m. on May 26, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 8:25-cv-02608-JVS-KES Date May 18, 2026 Title Balubhai Patel v. City of Buena Park et al

Present: The Honorable James V. Selna, U.S. District Court Judge Elsa Vargas Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] Order to Show Cause re. Rule 11 Sanctions

On April 22, 2026, Plaintiff Balabuhai Patel (“Patel”) filed an opposition to Defendant City of Buena Park’s (“Buena Park” or “City”) motion to dismiss Patel’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Opp’n, Dkt. No. 23; see Mot., Dkt. No. 22.) Buena Park replied. (Reply, Dkt. No. 26.) In reviewing Patel’s memorandum in opposition to Buena Park’s motion to dismiss the SAC, the Court found several instances of misquotes and miscites: Citation to “Curtis. Collins & Holbrook Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 175, 186 (1911),” for which the reporter number corresponds to United States v. Munday, 222 U.S. 175 (1911). Neither Munday nor Curtis, properly cited at 262 U.S. 215 (1923), contain the quoted material nor discuss takings, as the citation suggests. (See Opp’n at 3-4; Reply at 6.) Citation to “Weinberg v. Whatcom County, 762 F.2d 711, 714 (9th Cir. 1985),” for which the reporter number corresponds to Composite Technology, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 762 F.2d 708 (8th Cir. 1985). Yet Composite Technology does not contain the pincite Patel cites to, nor does it discuss 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the citation suggests. Further, Weinberg, properly cited at 241 F.3d 746 (2001), discusses Washington, not California law, failing to support Patel’s argument. (See Opp’n at 9-10; Reply at 6-7.) The Court notes that these inaccurate citations are copied and pasted directly from Patel’s previous memorandum in opposition to Buena Park’s first motion to dismiss. (See Dkt. No. 12.) In its order on the first motion to dismiss, this Court admonished Patel for these inaccurate legal citations and stated that it would consider sanctions, including dismissal, if he failed to correct such issues in future filings. (See Order, Dkt.

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 8:25-cv-02608-JVS-KES Date May 18, 2026 Title Balubhai Patel v. City of Buena Park et al No. 14 n.1.) Buena Park seeks disqualification on the basis of Plaintiff’s repeated—and identical—inaccuracies. (See Reply at 11-12.) The Court orders Patel and its counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for repeatedly misquoting and misciting cases in Patel’s memorandum in opposition to Buena Park’s motion to dismiss the SAC. The signatory to the memo, Frank A. Weiser, shall appear personally before the Court. A written response shall be filed not later than noon on May 22, 2026. Counsel shall specifically state whether AI was used in whole or in part to prepare the memorandum. The matter will be heard at 1:30p.m. on May 26, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Balubhai Patel v. City of Buena Park et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balubhai-patel-v-city-of-buena-park-et-al-cacd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack