Ung et al v. Facebook, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDERING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Case Management Statement due by 2/3/2012. Case Management Conference set for 2/10/2012 01:30 PM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 11/28/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

RYAN UNG, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 11-02829 JSW

Plaintiffs,

ORDER VACATING HEARING
ON MOTION TO DISMISS,
CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE,
AND ORDERING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant.
/

14
15

Defendant, Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) has filed a motion to dismiss, which is noticed

16

for a hearing on December 2, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. The Court has considered the parties’ papers,

17

relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it finds the matter suitable for

18

disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the Court

19

VACATES the hearing set for December 2, 2011.

20

Facebook removed this case from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for

21

the County of Santa Clara, and it asserts this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the

22

Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (“CAFA”). (See Docket No. 1, Notice of

23

Removal, ¶ 4.) “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the

24

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant ... to the district

25

court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is

26

pending.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1983)

27

(citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, federal courts are courts of limited

28

jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

1

Accordingly, the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the

2

party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.

3

Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

4

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt

5

as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

6

CAFA provides that district courts have original jurisdiction over any class action in

is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, (3) the primary defendants are not states,

9

state officials, or other government entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed

10

from ordering relief, and (4) the number of plaintiffs in the class is at least 100. 28 U.S.C. §§

11
For the Northern District of California

which (1) the amount in controversy exceeds five million dollars, (2) any plaintiff class member

8

United States District Court

7

1332(d)(2), (d)(5). “[U]nder CAFA the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction remains, as

12

before, on the proponent of federal jurisdiction.” Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co.,

13

443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006).

14

Plaintiffs do not plead a specific amount of damages in their Complaint. Thus, the Court

15

must look beyond the complaint to determine whether the suit meets the jurisdictional

16

requirements, and the defendant seeking removal must prove by a preponderance of the

17

evidence that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Loudermilk v. United States

18

Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). To determine whether the defendant has

19

met its burden, “the court should consider, in addition to the complaint itself, ‘facts in the

20

removal petition and . . . summary judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in

21

controversy at the time of removal.’” Lowdermilk, 479 F.3d at 1004 (quoting Singer v. State

22

Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373-74, 377 (9th Cir. 1997)). Such “summary judgment-type

23

evidence” includes affidavits and interrogatories. Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980

24

(9th Cir. 2005) (citing De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 57-58 (5th Cir. 1993)).

25
26
27
28

In order to establish the amount in controversy, Facebook relies solely on paragraph 18
of Plaintiffs’ complaint, in which Plaintiffs allege as follows:
On February 18, 2011, the Wall Street Journal published an article under
the headline “Web’s Hot New Commodity: Privacy,” in which it
highlighted a company called “Allow Ltd.,” one of nearly a dozen
companies that offer to sell people’s personal information on their behalf
2

1
2

and give them 70% of the sale. An Allow Ltd. customer received a
payment of $8.95 for letting Allow tell a credit card company he is
shopping for new plastic. Id.

3

These allegations are unrelated to any of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, because this Court

4

must ensure that it has subject matter over this dispute, it HEREBY ORDERS the parties to

5

submit supplemental briefing on whether Facebook’s reliance on paragraph 18 of the Complaint

6

is sufficient to satisfy its burden to show the requisite amount in controversy. Facebook’s

7

supplemental brief shall be due by no later than December 7, 2011. Plaintiffs may submit any

8

response thereto by December 14, 2011, and Facebook may file a reply by no later than

9

December 21, 2011. At that time the matter shall be deemed submitted.
The case management conference scheduled for December 16, 2011 is HEREBY

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

CONTINUED to February 10, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. The parties’ Joint Case Management

12

Statement shall de due on February 3, 2012.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: November 28, 2011
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3