Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 10, 2026

Gholami v. OpenAI

Judge
Charles Breyer
Docket
3:26-cv-00174
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Gholami v. OpenAI, Judge Breyer granted motions for service and appointed counsel for Gholami.

Who this affects

Danial Gholami, OpenAI, Inc., the United States Marshal, and the counsel appointed to assist Gholami.

What happened

Danial Gholami v. OpenAI, Inc. concerns Gholami’s copyright-infringement complaint against OpenAI, Inc. Gholami lives in Iran and is representing himself.

The court had granted Gholami permission to proceed without paying filing fees but dismissed his original complaint without prejudice. After he filed an amended complaint, Gholami asked the court to direct service of the lawsuit and to appoint a volunteer lawyer.

Judge Charles R. Breyer granted both motions. He ordered the United States Marshal to serve OpenAI and appointed counsel because ongoing hostilities in Iran could make it difficult for Gholami to pursue the case. The order did not decide whether the copyright claim was valid.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gholami v. OpenAI · No. 3:26-cv-00174
Judge
Charles Breyer
Date
Sept. 10, 2026

Background

Danial Gholami filed a complaint alleging that OpenAI, Inc. infringed his copyright. The opinion states that Gholami lives in Iran and was proceeding without a lawyer. He initially asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The court granted that request but dismissed the original complaint without prejudice. Gholami later filed an amended complaint.

Gholami then moved for an order directing service of process and for appointment of volunteer counsel. The court had previously stayed the case because of ongoing hostilities in Iran, but later lifted that stay.

Rulings

The court granted the motion directing service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) and ordered the United States Marshal to serve the lawsuit. The court also granted the motion for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). It found that the continuing hostilities in Iran could make it difficult for Gholami to prosecute the action.

Result

The order granted both motions. It did not decide the merits of Gholami’s copyright-infringement allegation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.