Jump to content

Stacey v Altman et al

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name Stacey v. Altman et al[1]
Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California[1]
Docket 3:26-cv-03701[1]
Filed April 29, 2026[1]
Judge(s) Jacqueline Scott Corley[2]
Plaintiffs Mark Stacey, individually and as successor-in-interest to Shannda Aviugana-Durand[1]
Defendants Samuel Altman; OpenAI Foundation; OpenAI OpCo LLC; OpenAI Group PBC[1]
Case type Civil wrongful-death and survival action[1]
Claims / issues Negligence, product liability and related claims concerning the Tumbler Ridge shooting[1]
Status September 29, 2026 order sets the case-management conference for October 20 at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom, without an advance joint statement; motion briefing dates set.[3]

Stacey v. Altman et al. (No. 3:26-cv-03701, N.D. Cal.) is a wrongful-death and product-liability action filed on April 29, 2026, by Mark Stacey, individually and as successor-in-interest to Shannda Aviugana-Durand. The complaint names Samuel Altman, OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI OpCo LLC and OpenAI Group PBC.[4]


The September 29, 2026 order supersedes the earlier conference date and sets dismissal-motion briefing deadlines.[3]

Allegations and requested relief

Stacey alleges that failures to warn law enforcement about violent ChatGPT activity, prevent renewed access after account deactivation, and provide safe product design contributed to his wife's death in the February 10, 2026 Tumbler Ridge shooting. The complaint asserts negligence, product-liability, wrongful-death, survival and other claims, seeking damages and safety-related injunctive relief. These are the plaintiff's allegations, not findings of liability.[4]

Procedural history

The earlier June 24 court notice continued the initial case-management conference to October 14, 2026, before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, with a joint statement due October 7. That notice is retained here as procedural history; the September 29 order below supplies the later schedule.[2]

September 29, 2026 scheduling order

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted a joint scheduling stipulation in an order captioned Stacey v. Altman and all related cases. It sets an initial case-management conference for October 20, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom to discuss alternative dispute resolution, and removes the requirement for an advance joint statement.[3]

The order sets the following deadlines and hearings:[3]

  • Forum non conveniens motion: motion by October 15, opposition by November 5, reply by December 3, and hearing December 17, 2026, at 10 a.m.
  • Amended complaints: October 29, 2026.
  • Rule 12(b)(6) motion: motion by November 19, opposition by December 17, reply by January 14, 2027, and hearing February 11, 2027, at 10 a.m.

The June 24 dates above are historical and superseded by this order. The reviewed copy is stamped September 29 in related case No. 3:26-cv-03705 as ECF 41 and captioned with Stacey's lead case No. 3:26-cv-03701.[3]

See Also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Court filing / case record, reviewed September 7, 2026
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 N.D. Cal., Stacey v. Altman, No. 3:26-cv-03701-JSC, court docket entries reproduced by Justia; snapshot retrieved June 24, 2026
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 N.D. Cal., Stacey v. Altman and all related cases, order re joint stipulation on briefing schedule, September 29, 2026, pp. 1–2; copy stamped No. 3:26-cv-03705, ECF 41.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 N.D. Cal., Stacey v. Altman, No. 3:26-cv-03701, complaint, ECF 1, filed April 29, 2026, pp. 1–2, 7–8, 38–41; copy hosted by Reclaim The Net
Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=Stacey_v_Altman_et_al&oldid=6027"