Funes v. Instagram, Inc et al
Filing
33
ORDER RE MINIMAL DIVERSITY UNDER CAFA (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
LUCY RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. C 12-06482 WHA
v.
ORDER RE MINIMAL
DIVERSITY UNDER CAFA
INSTAGRAM, LLC,
Defendant.
/
In this putative class action, defendant Instagram, LLC’s motion to dismiss contends in a
18
footnote that plaintiff has not adequately pled jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act,
19
28 U.S.C. 1332(d) (Mot. at 15 n.7). As this issue was not adequately addressed in the parties’
20
briefs, both parties were requested to submit supplemental briefs. Having reviewed those
21
submissions, the Court is not satisfied that it has subject-matter jurisdiction.
22
The party asserting federal subject-matter jurisdiction has the burden of showing the case
23
meets the jurisdictional requirements and therefore belongs in federal court. Lewis v. Verizon
24
Commun., Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 399 (9th Cir. 2010). Under CAFA, only minimal diversity is
25
required; that is, at least one member of the plaintiff class and one defendant must be diverse. 28
26
U.S.C. 1332(d)(2). For purposes of diversity, Instagram is a citizen of both Delaware and
27
California. Therefore, plaintiff must demonstrate that at least one member of the putative class
28
was a citizen of a state other than California or Delaware as of the time of the filing of the
complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(7); Johnson v. Advance Am., 549 F.3d 932, 936 (4th Cir.
1
2008). Plaintiff’s theory that at least one member of the proposed class, defined as “all residents
2
of the State of California, who created an Instagram account prior to December 18, 2012, and
3
posted at least one picture to Instagram prior to December 18, 2012,” meets this requirement is
4
fact-dependent. Plaintiff has not yet met her burden of demonstrating at least minimal diversity
5
under CAFA. Possibly a resident of California could be a member of the proposed class and yet
6
be domiciled in a different state (and thus be a citizen of that different state), but plaintiff has not
7
yet shown this.
8
9
this issue. All other issues raised in defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) will be held in abeyance.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Accordingly, plaintiff will have until JUNE 6, 2013, to submit actual, admissible proof on
12
13
14
Dated: May 16, 2013.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?