Stebbins v. Rebolo
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-00546
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Stebbins v. Rebolo, Judge White granted the motion in part, vacated judgment, denied recusal, and allowed a final amended complaint.
David A. Stebbins may file a limited amended complaint within 30 days, while Emily Rebolo and the other defendants remain subject to the reopened case and its limits on new claims and defendants.
What happened
In Stebbins v. Rebolo, David A. Stebbins asked the court to reconsider its dismissal, set aside the judgment, and recuse the judge. He challenged the court’s treatment of claims involving livestream videos and two-dimensional images.
The court denied reconsideration of claims based on the April 10, 2021 livestream, but vacated the judgment and allowed Stebbins one final opportunity to amend certain other claims. He may not add new claims or defendants, and he may not re-allege claims involving the April 10 livestream.
Judge Jeffrey White denied the request for recusal because the request was based on the court’s rulings, and the court reopened the case and gave Stebbins 30 days to file an amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Stebbins v. Rebolo · No. 4:22-cv-00546
- Jeffrey White
- Mar. 28, 2023
Background
David A. Stebbins filed a motion for reconsideration and recusal and a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). He argued that the court had improperly dismissed claims involving an April 10, 2021 livestream, other livestream videos, two-dimensional images, and related allegations. He also argued that the court had not addressed all claims, had not adequately explained why amendment would be futile, and had misunderstood his position concerning fair use.
Reconsideration
The court applied Northern District of California Local Rule 7-9, which allows reconsideration in specified circumstances, including a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. The court denied reconsideration of the claims based on the April 10, 2021 livestream, relying on the reasons given in its decision denying reconsideration in a related case.
The court also rejected Stebbins’s arguments that it had failed to address his claims involving an April 18, 2021 livestream, a YouTube Shorts video, a Vegas retrospective video, and a December 18, 2021 livestream. The court said its earlier dismissal order had addressed those claims. It likewise found that disagreement with the court’s conclusions about the two-dimensional images and the futility of amendment did not establish a basis for reconsideration.
Amended Complaint and Judgment
Although Stebbins had not provided additional information showing that amendment could cure the pleading defects, the court vacated the judgment and allowed a final opportunity to amend. Stebbins may amend only the infringement claims based on the two-dimensional images and claims based on alleged copying of livestream videos other than the April 10 video. He may not add new claims or defendants, must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, and must allege concrete, non-speculative facts about what was infringed and how. The amended complaint was due within 30 days, and the clerk was directed to reopen the case.
Recusal
Stebbins also asked the court to recuse itself based on his assertion that the court held a personal grudge against him. The court denied that request, explaining that the request was based on the court’s rulings and that an unfavorable judicial ruling is not an adequate basis for recusal.
Disposition
The court granted Stebbins’s motion in part, vacated the judgment, denied reconsideration of the claims related to the April 10, 2021 livestream, denied the request for recusal, and required any amended complaint to comply with the limits stated in the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.