In Re FACEBOOK INTERNET TRACKING LITIGATION
TRANSFER ORDER: pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed onSchedule A and pending outside the Northern District of California are transferred to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Edward J. Davila for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there and listed on Schedule A.. Signed by Judge MDL PANEL on 2/8/12. (cv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2012)
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
IN RE: FACEBOOK INTERNET
MDL No. 2314
Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in the Northern District of
California Davis action move to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of California. This
litigation currently consists of eleven actions pending in ten districts, as listed on Schedule A.1
No party opposes centralization. Common defendant Facebook, Inc. (Facebook) supports
centralization and suggests that the Panel rename the litigation “In re: Facebook Cookies Litigation.”
Moving plaintiffs oppose this request as an unduly narrow description of their claims.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these six actions involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
These actions share factual allegations that Facebook improperly tracked users’ internet activity after
users had logged out of their Facebook accounts. Plaintiffs in all actions bring claims under the
federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511. Additional claims include violation of the Stored Electronic
Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, as
well as common law claims for intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and
trespass to chattels. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
Judge W. Royal Furgeson, Jr., took no part in the decision of this matter.
The Panel also has been notified of nine potentially related actions filed in the Northern
District of California. Moving plaintiffs contend that certain of these actions are not related and
should not be assigned to the MDL. Because these actions are pending in the transferee court, the
Panel need not determine whether the actions should be included within the MDL proceedings. See
Panel Rule 7.2(a) (“Potential tag-along actions filed in the transferee district do not require Panel
action. A party should request assignment of such actions to the Section 1407 transferee judge in
accordance with applicable local rules.”).
Another six potentially related actions are pending in, respectively, the Western District of
Arkansas, the District of Hawaii, the District of Montana, the Western District of Oklahoma, the
District of Rhode Island and the Western District of Washington. These and any other related actions
are potential tag-along actions. See Rules 1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2, R.P.J.P.M.L.
-2rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary.
We are persuaded that the Northern District of California is the most appropriate transferee
district. Two actions and several potentially related actions are already pending in this district.
Common defendant Facebook is headquartered in the Northern District of California, where relevant
documents and witnesses are located.
Further, we decline to accept Facebook’s suggestion that we rename the litigation “In re:
Facebook Cookies Litigation,” as doing so would imply an unduly restrictive scope on this litigation.
Moving plaintiffs characterize their claims as involving more than just tracking cookies. We are of
the opinion that the current title is a neutral description of plaintiffs’ allegations.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of California are transferred to the Northern
District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Edward J. Davila
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there and listed on
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
John G. Heyburn II
Kathryn H. Vratil
Paul J. Barbadoro
Charles R. Breyer
Barbara S. Jones
Marjorie O. Rendell
IN RE: FACEBOOK INTERNET
MDL No. 2314
Northern District of Alabama
Alexandria Parrish v. Facebook, Inc., C.A. No. 2:11-03576
District of Arizona
Sharon Beatty v. Facebook Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:11-01964
Northern District of California
Perrin Aikens Davis, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., C.A. No. 5:11-04834
Lana Brkic v. Facebook, Inc., C.A. No. 5:11-04935
Southern District of Illinois
Dana Howard v. Facebook, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:11-00895
District of Kansas
John Graham v. Facebook, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:11-02556
Western District of Kentucky
David M. Hoffman v. Facebook, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:11-00166
Middle District of Louisiana
Janet Seamon v. Facebook, Inc., C.A. No. 3:11-00689
Western District of Missouri
Chandra L. Thompson v. Facebook, Inc., C.A. No. 2:11-04256
Northern District of Mississippi
Brooke Rutledge v. Facebook, Inc., C.A. No. 3:11-00133
Western District of Texas
Michael Singley v. Facebook, Inc., C.A. No. 1:11-00874
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?