Hubbell v. USA
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:25-cv-07003
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Nick Hubbell v. Spotify USA, Inc., Judge Corley dismissed the case without prejudice because Hubbell did not serve Spotify or explain the failure.
Nick Hubbell's lawsuit against Spotify USA, Inc. was dismissed without prejudice because he did not file proof of service, show good cause for failing to serve Spotify, or file the required case-management statement.
What happened
Nick Hubbell sued Spotify USA, Inc., alleging copyright, fraud, and Lanham Act violations. He was representing himself and filed the case on August 19, 2025.
The court told Hubbell that he had to serve Spotify with the complaint and summons within 90 days. The deadline passed without proof of service, and Hubbell did not show good cause for failing to serve Spotify or file a required case-management statement.
Judge Corley dismissed Nick Hubbell v. Spotify USA, Inc. without prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Hubbell v. USA · No. 3:25-cv-07003
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 2, 2026
Background
Nick Hubbell filed a copyright, fraud, and Lanham Act lawsuit against Spotify USA, Inc. on August 19, 2025. He was representing himself without a lawyer.
Service Requirement
The court advised Hubbell that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) required him to serve Spotify with the complaint and summons within 90 days after filing the complaint. The deadline was November 17, 2025. The court later reminded Hubbell of this obligation and continued the initial case-management conference to March 4, 2026.
As of the order, Hubbell had not filed proof that Spotify had been served. He had not shown good cause for failing to serve Spotify, had not otherwise communicated with the court, and had not filed a case-management conference statement. No attorney had appeared for Spotify.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 4(m). The Clerk was directed to close the case. The dismissal was based on the failure to complete service and did not decide the merits of Hubbell's copyright, fraud, or Lanham Act allegations.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.