Livevideo.AI Corp v. Redstone

Background

LiveVideo.AI Corp. sued National Amusements, Inc. (NAI), Paramount’s chief executive, a former director, and outside counsel. The complaint asserted state-law tort claims and claims under the whistleblower provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

NAI obtained an order setting aside a certificate of default after the court determined that LiveVideo.AI had served a pleading that was never accepted for filing rather than the operative first amended complaint. The court also found that the default should be set aside under the factors governing relief from default. The court later directed LiveVideo.AI to explain why the action should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve the defendants, but LiveVideo.AI did not timely move to extend its service deadline.

LiveVideo.AI’s Rule 60(b)(3) Motion

LiveVideo.AI moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), which permits relief from an order obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. It argued that NAI had falsely claimed it had not been properly served, confused the identity of its registered service agent, and inaccurately described which pleading LiveVideo.AI had served. LiveVideo.AI also sought permission for the Clerk to process a proposed default judgment against NAI in the amount of $2.42 billion.

The court denied the motion. It held that the December 11, 2024 order was only a scheduling order directing LiveVideo.AI to respond to NAI’s motion, and LiveVideo.AI cited no authority allowing such an order to be vacated because of alleged misrepresentations in the motion requiring a response. The court also found that LiveVideo.AI had responded to NAI’s arguments and therefore had not been prevented from fully and fairly presenting its position.

The court further found that NAI had not misrepresented the service issue. According to the court, the record showed that LiveVideo.AI’s process server delivered a second amended complaint that had never been accepted for filing, rather than the operative first amended complaint. The court concluded that LiveVideo.AI’s motion repeated arguments made in earlier unsuccessful or withdrawn motions and was an attempt to relitigate the decision setting aside NAI’s default. It also noted significant doubts about whether LiveVideo.AI had a meritorious claim in the first place.

NAI’s Stay Motion and Disposition

NAI asked the court to stay responses to all pending and future motions filed by LiveVideo.AI until the court decided NAI’s sanctions motion and determined whether the action should be dismissed under the service rule. Because the court denied LiveVideo.AI’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion, NAI’s request was moot insofar as it sought to pause NAI’s response to that motion. The court declined to impose the broader stay covering motions not yet filed.

Judge Barbara Moses ordered that LiveVideo.AI’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion was DENIED. The court ordered that NAI’s stay motion was DENIED AS MOOT, without prejudice to renewal if necessary, and directed the Clerk to close both motions.