CONSTANTINO BASILE, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00108-APG-MDC
Plaintiff Order (1) Denying Plaintiff Constantino Basile’s Motion for Default Judgment, and v. (2) To Show Cause Why Basile’s Claims Against the Remaining Defendants Should LOS ANGELES FILM SCHOOL, LLC, et Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Timely and al., Properly Serve Defendants [ECF No. 138]
Plaintiff Constantino Basile filed a 228-page amended complaint against over 40 defendants. ECF No. 103.1 He moves for default judgment against 24 defendants. ECF No. 138 at 7-8. Several defendants2 oppose on various grounds, arguing, amongst other points, that Basile has not effectuated proper service and has failed to fully comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4. I previously granted a motion to deem Basile a vexatious litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), enjoining and prohibiting him from “filing any new complaint, petition, or other action in this court related to his film school projects, copyright infringement, or the alleged
1 The first pages of the amended complaint list 46 defendants, but pages 128-29 state that this is a “Revised Prayer for Damages, First Amended Complaint” and list 11 “still active Defendants.” ECF Nos. 103 at 1-12; 103-1 at 128-29. The “still active Defendants” are: the U.S. Supreme Court; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; the U.S. District Court – Central District, Western Division; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Pentagon; Nevada District Court; Harrison Ford; Will Smith; American Broadcast Center; Los Angeles County Medical Examiner; and the City of Santa Monica (SMPD). ECF No. 103-1 at 128-29. Basile has filed documents purporting to show proof of service for more than these 11 defendants. See ECF Nos. 131-37. 2 These defendants include JAMS, Inc.; the U.S. District Court – Central District of California Western Division; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Federal Bureau of Investigation; the U.S. Supreme Court; the Pentagon; the Los Angeles Film School; and EMH Productions. ECF Nos. 146, 148, 152, 163. related conspiracy.” ECF No. 100 at 8. I specified that he could file an amended complaint “alleging only a claim against the City of Santa Monica, as I permitted in my September 18, 2024 order.” ECF No. 100 at 9 (citing ECF No. 88). I further ordered that Basile was required to seek leave of court before filing any additional actions in this district. Id. at 8-9. Basile did not seek leave of court before filing the amended complaint against defendants other than the City of
Santa Monica. Basile’s amended complaint is also operatively identical to his original complaint, thus it asserts claims against all previously dismissed defendants and includes allegations directly relating to his film school project allegations. See ECF No. 103. He therefore filed his amended complaint in violation of my prior order. I deny Basile’s motion for default judgment because in addition to violating the prefiling order, he has not timely and properly served the defendants against whom he seeks default judgment. I thus also order Basile to show cause why the remaining defendants should not be dismissed because Basile has not timely and properly served them.
As an initial matter, Basile has not sought entry of default by the clerk of the court and the clerk of court has not entered default as required for Basile to obtain a default judgment under FRCP 55. Additionally, Basile’s motion fails because he has not properly served the defendants for whom he seeks a default judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1) requires a plaintiff to serve the defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint. Under Rule 4(m), service must be accomplished within 90 days after the complaint was filed. If proper service is not timely made, I “must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” If Basile shows good cause for his failure to timely serve, then I must extend the time for service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). On February 14, 2025, the clerk of court sent Basile a notice of intent to dismiss over 30 defendants3 without prejudice unless by March 16, 2025, Basile either filed proof of service showing that service had “taken place prior to the expiration of the time limit set forth in Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(m),” or showed good cause why such service was not timely made. ECF No. 130. Basile responded by filing numerous documents purporting to show proof of service for some defendants, as well as stating that he mailed documents to those and other parties’ attorneys.4 ECF Nos. 131-137.
3 These defendants are: The Los Angeles Film School, LLC; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Scott Free Films, LLC; TMZ; Onza Partners SL - Onza Entertainment; Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.; Legendary Pictures; Christopher Nolan; Jonathon Nolan; Andrew Wachowski; Lana Wachowski; Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino − Caesars Entertainment Corporation; Los Angeles Superior Court − Van Nuys; U.S. District Court − Central District of California Western Division; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); JAMS, Inc; Ford Harrison, LLP; Oxnard Police Department; Beverly Hills Police Department; Michelle Obama; Blake Lively; Nancy Pelosi; Gold Coast Cab Company; Will Smith; Chris Rock; American Broadcast Company; The United States Supreme Court; the Pentagon; Harrison Ford; Los Angeles County Medical Examiner; and the Las Vegas Metro Police Department. 4 Basile filed proof of purported service for: The United States Supreme Court (ECF No. 131 at 7); the Pentagon (Id. at 14); Nevada District Court (Id. at 19); Will Smith (Id. at 24); Los Angeles County Medical Examiner (Id. at 29); Los Angeles Superior Court (Id. at 34); Harrison Ford (Id. at 41); American Broadcast Company (Id. at 46, 48); Los Angeles Film School (ECF No. 132 at 23, 25); Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Scott Free, LLC (Id. at 7, 9); Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., Legendary Pictures, Lana Wachowski, EHM Productions, Inc., Jonathan Nolan, and Christopher Nolan (Id. at 16); Onza Partners SL - Onza Entertainment (Id. at 32); JAMS, Inc. (ECF Nos. 135 at 5-6; 137 at 7); the Beverly Hills Police Department (ECF No. 135 at 8-9); and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (ECF No. 136 at 4). He also states, without providing additional proof, that he has served the following defendants on five dates (2/26/2025, 3/6/2025, 3/7/2025, 3/11/2025, and 4/11/2025) by sending their attorneys unspecified documents “in a sealed envelope, with first class postage prepaid:” Southwest Airlines; Los Angeles Film School; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Scott Free, LLC; Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Sony Pictures Television, Inc., Kripke Enterprises, Amblin Entertainment, Inc., and NBCUniversal Media, LLC; Warner Bros., Entertainment, Inc., Legendary Pictures, Andrew Wachowski, Lana Wachowsky, EHM Productions, Inc., Jonathon I have already dismissed with prejudice Basile’s claims against Southwest Airlines, Co.; Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP (MSK); Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.; Sony Pictures Television, Inc.; Kripke Enterprises; Amblin Entertainment, Inc.; NBCUniversal Media, LLC; Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger (TADBE); Robert A. Leark, Ph.D; Governor Gavin Newsom; the Santa Monica Police Department; JAMS, Inc.; the Las Vegas Metropolitan
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CONSTANTINO BASILE, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00108-APG-MDC
Plaintiff Order (1) Denying Plaintiff Constantino Basile’s Motion for Default Judgment, and v. (2) To Show Cause Why Basile’s Claims Against the Remaining Defendants Should LOS ANGELES FILM SCHOOL, LLC, et Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Timely and al., Properly Serve Defendants [ECF No. 138]
Plaintiff Constantino Basile filed a 228-page amended complaint against over 40 defendants. ECF No. 103.1 He moves for default judgment against 24 defendants. ECF No. 138 at 7-8. Several defendants2 oppose on various grounds, arguing, amongst other points, that Basile has not effectuated proper service and has failed to fully comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4. I previously granted a motion to deem Basile a vexatious litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), enjoining and prohibiting him from “filing any new complaint, petition, or other action in this court related to his film school projects, copyright infringement, or the alleged
1 The first pages of the amended complaint list 46 defendants, but pages 128-29 state that this is a “Revised Prayer for Damages, First Amended Complaint” and list 11 “still active Defendants.” ECF Nos. 103 at 1-12; 103-1 at 128-29. The “still active Defendants” are: the U.S. Supreme Court; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; the U.S. District Court – Central District, Western Division; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Pentagon; Nevada District Court; Harrison Ford; Will Smith; American Broadcast Center; Los Angeles County Medical Examiner; and the City of Santa Monica (SMPD). ECF No. 103-1 at 128-29. Basile has filed documents purporting to show proof of service for more than these 11 defendants. See ECF Nos. 131-37. 2 These defendants include JAMS, Inc.; the U.S. District Court – Central District of California Western Division; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Federal Bureau of Investigation; the U.S. Supreme Court; the Pentagon; the Los Angeles Film School; and EMH Productions. ECF Nos. 146, 148, 152, 163. related conspiracy.” ECF No. 100 at 8. I specified that he could file an amended complaint “alleging only a claim against the City of Santa Monica, as I permitted in my September 18, 2024 order.” ECF No. 100 at 9 (citing ECF No. 88). I further ordered that Basile was required to seek leave of court before filing any additional actions in this district. Id. at 8-9. Basile did not seek leave of court before filing the amended complaint against defendants other than the City of
Santa Monica. Basile’s amended complaint is also operatively identical to his original complaint, thus it asserts claims against all previously dismissed defendants and includes allegations directly relating to his film school project allegations. See ECF No. 103. He therefore filed his amended complaint in violation of my prior order. I deny Basile’s motion for default judgment because in addition to violating the prefiling order, he has not timely and properly served the defendants against whom he seeks default judgment. I thus also order Basile to show cause why the remaining defendants should not be dismissed because Basile has not timely and properly served them.
As an initial matter, Basile has not sought entry of default by the clerk of the court and the clerk of court has not entered default as required for Basile to obtain a default judgment under FRCP 55. Additionally, Basile’s motion fails because he has not properly served the defendants for whom he seeks a default judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1) requires a plaintiff to serve the defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint. Under Rule 4(m), service must be accomplished within 90 days after the complaint was filed. If proper service is not timely made, I “must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” If Basile shows good cause for his failure to timely serve, then I must extend the time for service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). On February 14, 2025, the clerk of court sent Basile a notice of intent to dismiss over 30 defendants3 without prejudice unless by March 16, 2025, Basile either filed proof of service showing that service had “taken place prior to the expiration of the time limit set forth in Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(m),” or showed good cause why such service was not timely made. ECF No. 130. Basile responded by filing numerous documents purporting to show proof of service for some defendants, as well as stating that he mailed documents to those and other parties’ attorneys.4 ECF Nos. 131-137.
3 These defendants are: The Los Angeles Film School, LLC; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Scott Free Films, LLC; TMZ; Onza Partners SL - Onza Entertainment; Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.; Legendary Pictures; Christopher Nolan; Jonathon Nolan; Andrew Wachowski; Lana Wachowski; Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino − Caesars Entertainment Corporation; Los Angeles Superior Court − Van Nuys; U.S. District Court − Central District of California Western Division; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); JAMS, Inc; Ford Harrison, LLP; Oxnard Police Department; Beverly Hills Police Department; Michelle Obama; Blake Lively; Nancy Pelosi; Gold Coast Cab Company; Will Smith; Chris Rock; American Broadcast Company; The United States Supreme Court; the Pentagon; Harrison Ford; Los Angeles County Medical Examiner; and the Las Vegas Metro Police Department. 4 Basile filed proof of purported service for: The United States Supreme Court (ECF No. 131 at 7); the Pentagon (Id. at 14); Nevada District Court (Id. at 19); Will Smith (Id. at 24); Los Angeles County Medical Examiner (Id. at 29); Los Angeles Superior Court (Id. at 34); Harrison Ford (Id. at 41); American Broadcast Company (Id. at 46, 48); Los Angeles Film School (ECF No. 132 at 23, 25); Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Scott Free, LLC (Id. at 7, 9); Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., Legendary Pictures, Lana Wachowski, EHM Productions, Inc., Jonathan Nolan, and Christopher Nolan (Id. at 16); Onza Partners SL - Onza Entertainment (Id. at 32); JAMS, Inc. (ECF Nos. 135 at 5-6; 137 at 7); the Beverly Hills Police Department (ECF No. 135 at 8-9); and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (ECF No. 136 at 4). He also states, without providing additional proof, that he has served the following defendants on five dates (2/26/2025, 3/6/2025, 3/7/2025, 3/11/2025, and 4/11/2025) by sending their attorneys unspecified documents “in a sealed envelope, with first class postage prepaid:” Southwest Airlines; Los Angeles Film School; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Scott Free, LLC; Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Sony Pictures Television, Inc., Kripke Enterprises, Amblin Entertainment, Inc., and NBCUniversal Media, LLC; Warner Bros., Entertainment, Inc., Legendary Pictures, Andrew Wachowski, Lana Wachowsky, EHM Productions, Inc., Jonathon I have already dismissed with prejudice Basile’s claims against Southwest Airlines, Co.; Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP (MSK); Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.; Sony Pictures Television, Inc.; Kripke Enterprises; Amblin Entertainment, Inc.; NBCUniversal Media, LLC; Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger (TADBE); Robert A. Leark, Ph.D; Governor Gavin Newsom; the Santa Monica Police Department; JAMS, Inc.; the Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department (LVMPD); EMH Productions; and Los Angeles Film School. ECF Nos. 96, 99, 185. I therefore do not address them further. As for the remaining defendants, based on his filings, Basile has not properly accomplished service on the following defendants listed in the clerk of court’s notice of intent: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Scott Free Films, LLC; TMZ; Onza Partners SL - Onza Entertainment;5 Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.;
Legendary Pictures; Christopher Nolan; Nolan, and Christopher Nolan; Onza Partners SL - Onza Entertainment; Rio-All Suites Hotel and Casino – Caesars Entertainment; Thorndal, Armstrong, Delk, Balkenbush, and Eisinger; Robert A. Leark; Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; Superior Court of California; JAMS, Inc.; Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP; Ford Harrison, LLP; City of Oxnard; City of Beverly Hills (Beverly Hills Police Department); U.S. District Court – Central District of California – Western Division, Nancy Pelosi, Michelle Obama, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Blake Lively; Chris Rock; Gold Coast Cab Company; Harrison Ford; Will Smith; American Broadcast Company; the U.S. Supreme Court; the Pentagon; the Santa Monica Police Department; Los Angeles County Medical Examiner; and Governor Gavin Newsom (ECF Nos. 132 at 36-44; 133 at 10-18; 134 at 29-37; 135 at 10-18; 136 at 5-13; 137 at 9-17). 5 The clerk of court separated these as two defendants, but Basile’s complaint lists them as one defendant. ECF No. 103 at 6. Jonathon Nolan; Andrew Wachowski; Lana Wachowski; Rio All - Suites Hotel and Casino - Caesars Entertainment Corporation; Los Angeles Superior Court - Van Nuys;
Ford Harrison, LLP; Oxnard Police Department; Beverly Hills Police Department; Michelle Obama; Blake Lively; Nancy Pelosi; Gold Coast Cab Company; and Chris Rock. ECF No. 74.). Basile also has not properly served the following defendants who are not listed in
the notice but named in Basile’s complaint: American Broadcast Company; the United States Supreme Court; the Pentagon; Harrison Ford; the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner; U.S. District Court - Central District of California Western Division; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Will Smith; Alston & Bird, LLP;6 Caldwell, Leslie & Proctor (Linda M. Burrow);7 and Nevada District Court.8 Basile’s service attempts do not comport with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 for
multiple reasons, including: (1) delivering a copy of the complaint but no copy of the summons,9 (2) the person attempting service leaving materials with individuals not authorized to receive service,10 and (3) sending documents to a United States agency by mail, but not by certified or registered mail.11 Basile states he has sent the attorneys of various defendants documents via
6 Basile lists this party twice in the body of the complaint, but not in the caption. ECF Nos. 1 at - 44, 10; 103 at 1-4, 10. 7 Basile lists this party in the body of the complaint, but not in the caption. ECF Nos. 1 at 1-4, 10; 103 at 1-4, 10. 8 Basile did not list “Nevada District Court” as a defendant in the case caption or in the first pages of his complaint and amended complaint where he lists the defendants. ECF Nos. 1 at 1- 12; 103 at 1-12. But in his amended complaint, he lists it as a “Still Active Defendant[]” with no other identifying information on page 104 of the amended complaint. ECF No. 103-1 at 103. 9 This violates FRCP 4(c) and applies to all defendants who have not appeared or who did not waive service of a summons because the docket shows no summons have been issued in this case. Additionally, Basile’s own documents show he did not serve a summons on the following defendants: the Supreme Court of the United States (ECF No. 131 at 7); the Pentagon (Id. at 14); Nevada District Court (Id. at 19); Will Smith (Id. at 24); Los Angeles County Medical Examiner (Id. at 29); Harrison Ford (Id. at 41); ABC (Id. at 46); Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Scott Free Films, LLC (ECF No. 132 at 5-12); Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., Legendary Pictures, Andrew Wachowski, Lana Wachowski, Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan (Id. at 14-19); Onza Partners SL - Onza Entertainment (Id. at 30-35); and the Beverly Hills Police Department (ECF No. 135 at 7-8). 10 This violates FRCP 4(e) and 4(h), and applies to the following defendants: the Supreme Court of the United States (ECF No. 131 at 7); Will Smith (Id. at 24); Los Angeles County Medical Examiner (Id. at 29); and Harrison Ford (Id. at 41). 11 This violates FRCP 4(i) and applies to the following defendants: FBI (ECF No. 134 at 10-13); United States District Court – Central District of California Western Division (Id. at 15-16); and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Id. at 20-23). first class postage, but has not specified which documents he sent, nor filed proof of doing so, in addition to purportedly sending the documents more than 90 days after he filed the complaint.12 And he has not presented any evidence that the attorneys are authorized to accept service of process for any of the defendants. Thus, I hereby notify Basile that I will dismiss his claims unless he can show good cause
why he has not timely and properly served the remaining defendants. Failure to comply with this notice by September 30, 2025 will result in dismissal of the remaining defendants without prejudice. I THEREFORE ORDER that plaintiff Constantino Basile’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 138) is DENIED. I FURTHER ORDER that by September 30, 2025, plaintiff Constantio Basile shall show cause why his claims against the following defendants should not be dismissed for lack of timely and proper service:
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Scott Free Films, LLC; TMZ; Onza Partners SL - Onza Entertainment; Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.;
12 See ECF Nos. 132 at 36-44; 133 at 10-18; 134 at 29-37; 135 at 10-18; 136 at 5-13. Basile’s amended complaint did not restart the service clock for any defendant that was named in his original complaint. See Bolden v. City of Topeka, Kan., 441 F.3d 1129, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006) (stating Rule 4(m)’s time limit “is not restarted by the filing of an amended complaint except as to those defendants newly added in the amended complaint” because otherwise the plaintiff could repeatedly file amended complaints “to extend the time for service indefinitely” (quotation omitted)). Legendary Pictures; Christopher Nolan; Jonathon Nolan; Andrew Wachowski; Lana Wachowski;
Rio All - Suites Hotel and Casino - Caesars Entertainment Corporation; Los Angeles Superior Court - Van Nuys; Ford Harrison, LLP; Oxnard Police Department; Beverly Hills Police Department; Michelle Obama; Blake Lively; Nancy Pelosi; Gold Coast Cab Company;
Chris Rock; American Broadcast Company; the United States Supreme Court; the Pentagon; Harrison Ford; the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner; U.S. District Court - Central District of California Western Division; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Federal Bureau of Investigation; 1 Will Smith; Alston & Bird, LLP; 3 Caldwell, Leslie & Proctor (Linda M. Burrow); and Nevada District Court. If Basile fails to respond to this order by that date or fails to show good cause, I will dismiss the 6} claims against these defendants without further notice. 7 DATED this 12th day of September, 2025. 8 Z ANDREW P.GORDON ss CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1] 13 Basile did not list “Nevada District Court” as a defendant in the case caption or in the first Pages of his complaint and amended complaint where he lists the defendants. ECF Nos. 1 at 1- 12; 103 at 1-12. But in his amended complaint, he lists it as a “Still Active Defendant[]” with no other identifying information on page 104 of the amended complaint. ECF No. 103-1 at 103.