Livevideo.AI Corp v. Redstone

Background

At a show-cause hearing, Livevideo.AI Corp orally requested an extension of its time to serve process on the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court stated that the request was made for the first time during the hearing. The plaintiff had also filed three documents overnight that appeared to be proofs of service on individual defendants Redstone, Seligman, and Varney.

An earlier January 28, 2025 order had denied the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider a December 18, 2024 order that vacated a default previously entered against National Amusements Incorporated. The January 28 order also noted that the 90-day service period had expired, scheduled the show-cause hearing, and directed attorney Alfred C. Constants III to appear in person. At the hearing, Constants acknowledged receiving the January 28 order but said he failed to calendar the hearing and that this was his fault.

Rulings and Pending Matters

The court denied the plaintiff’s oral motion for an extension of time to serve process. It reserved the question whether the action should be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 4(m), apparently in light of the newly filed proofs of service. The court also reserved the question whether Constants should be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) for failing, without excuse, to obey the January 28 order or seek an adjournment in advance.

The court permitted defendant National Amusements Incorporated to file its planned sanctions motion under Rule 11 by February 26, 2025. Opposition papers were due March 12, and reply papers were due March 19. The court stayed the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental pleading and its motion for reconsideration of the January 28 order pending the outcome of the Rule 11 motion. The plaintiff could withdraw either or both motions by February 14, 2025.

Rule 11 Warning

The court reminded Constants that signing or electronically filing a document certifies, after a reasonable inquiry, that it is not filed for an improper purpose, that its legal arguments are supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law, and that its factual claims have evidentiary support or are likely to obtain such support after reasonable investigation or discovery. The court stated that an attorney may not allow others to use the attorney’s name or electronic filing credentials for documents the attorney did not write, review, or authorize.

The order states that Constants admitted during the hearing that he did not write, review, or authorize the plaintiff’s newest motion papers. Those papers were prepared by a paralegal and uploaded to the court’s electronic filing system. Judge Moses directed Constants to provide the order to the paralegal and the client and discuss its contents with them. She warned that another unauthorized filing could result in referral to the Grievance Committee.

Classification

This is a procedural order. The court ruled on service, possible dismissal, possible attorney sanctions, filing deadlines, and stays of motions; it did not decide the underlying merits of the lawsuit.