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