Chi v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 16

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Should plaintiff be of the view that she can allege facts to support another basis for jurisdiction, plaintiff shall file any amended complaint no later than September 7, 2012. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 22, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

YUNAE CHI,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. C-12-3498 MMC
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
MARK E. ZUCKERBERG, et al.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
17

Before the Court is plaintiff Yunae Chi’s Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint,

18

filed July 5, 2012.1 Having read and considered the complaint, the Court, as discussed

19

below, finds the complaint is subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

20

In her complaint, which she describes as a “shareholder derivative action brought on

21

behalf of [Facebook, Inc.],” (see Compl. ¶ 1), plaintiff brings five causes of action, titled,

22

respectively, “Breach of Fiduciary Duty,” “Gross Mismanagement,” “Contribution and

23

Indemnification,” “Abuse of Control,” and “Waste of Corporate Assets.” Plaintiff alleges that

24

the district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), has diversity jurisdiction over her

25

claims. (See Compl. ¶ 4.) No other basis for jurisdiction is alleged.

26
27

“Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties – each
defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” In re Digimarc Corp.

28
1

The Court did not receive a chambers copy of the complaint until August 21, 2012.

1

Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, plaintiff alleges she is a citizen

2

of California (see Compl. ¶ 6), and that a number of the defendants likewise are citizens of

3

California (see Compl. ¶¶ 8-11, 14). Consequently, plaintiff fails to allege any facts to

4

support a finding that complete diversity exists, and, indeed, alleges facts that foreclosure

5

any such finding.

6
7
8
9
10

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Should plaintiff be of the view that she can allege facts to support another basis for
jurisdiction, plaintiff shall file any amended complaint no later than September 7, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: August 22, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2