Livevideo.AI Corp v. Redstone
1:24-cv-06290
| S.D.N.Y. | Aug 12, 2025Background
- In 2024–2025 Paramount's board formed a Special Committee and approved an $8 billion merger with Skydance that closed in August 2025.
- LiveVideo.AI (a Delaware shell formed in 2023, controlled by Brad Greenspan) sued NAI, Shari Redstone, Christine Varney, and Nicole Seligman asserting Dodd‑Frank whistleblower, CFAA, and related state‑law tort claims based on unanswered June–July 2024 voicemails/letter and a May 6, 2024 “test email.”
- LiveVideo filed an operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) on September 17, 2024 but failed to serve that FAC on any defendant within the Rule 4(m) 90‑day period; instead it repeatedly attempted to rely on service of a non‑filed or superseded pleading and sought defaults.
- The docket accumulated numerous late, repetitive, and incoherent filings; LiveVideo’s counsel (Alfred Constants III) admitted he did not author or review several filings; evidence suggested Greenspan himself prepared many submissions and used counsel’s ECF credentials.
- NAI moved for Rule 11 and inherent‑power sanctions; the magistrate judge found LiveVideo’s federal claims (Dodd‑Frank and CFAA) frivolous, recommended dismissal under Rule 4(m) without prejudice, a $10,000 joint Rule 11 monetary sanction, referral of counsel to the Grievance Committee, and a limited filing injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to serve the operative complaint | LiveVideo claimed service occurred (pointing to November 6, 2024 delivery) or sought nunc pro tunc relief; later argued rights assigned from Greenspan | NAI showed the delivered pleading was not the operative FAC, service attempts were ineffective or late, and LiveVideo never showed good cause or timely sought extension | Dismissal without prejudice under Rule 4(m) recommended — plaintiff failed to show good cause or a colorable excuse for delay |
| Rule 11 sanctions for frivolous federal claims and improper purpose | LiveVideo defended claims by asserting standing via assignment from CEO and disputed notice adequacy | NAI argued Dodd‑Frank and CFAA claims were legally inapplicable, baseless, pursued to manufacture federal jurisdiction and to harass, and persisted despite court warnings | Rule 11 sanctions recommended: $10,000 joint monetary sanction; claims were frivolous and brought for improper purposes |
| Sanctions under the court’s inherent powers for vexatious litigation and dishonesty | LiveVideo disputed sufficiency of NAI’s safe‑harbor and blamed filing technicalities; counsel contested some factual assertions | NAI documented a pattern: misuse of process servers, repeated baseless motions, false statements about service, filings made under counsel’s name without review | Inherent‑power sanctions not additionally imposed; referral of counsel to Grievance Committee recommended and other non‑monetary measures (injunction) deemed sufficient |
| Filing injunction to curb vexatious filings and prevent reuse of claims in other courts | LiveVideo opposed sanctions and defended filings as good‑faith | NAI urged a pre‑filing screen and national‑scope limits to prevent repetitive litigation | A tailored leave‑to‑file injunction recommended: court permission required before filing further affirmative motions in this action and before re‑filing related federal claims in other federal courts |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) (CFAA requires technological harm to the victim’s computer system for private recovery)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts possess inherent powers to sanction, but must exercise them with restraint)
- Star Mark Mgmt., Inc. v. Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd., 682 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2012) (Rule 11 frivolousness standard: no chance of success and no reasonable argument to extend law)
- Margo v. Weiss, 213 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2000) (Rule 11 standard is objective unreasonableness)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (federal question jurisdiction does not exist for wholly insubstantial and frivolous federal claims)
- Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986) (factors governing issuance of filing injunctions against vexatious litigants)
- In re Martin‑Trigona, 9 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 1993) (district courts may impose tailored pre‑filing restrictions for repetitive meritless filings)