A.A., et al. v. META PLATFORMS, INC.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 26, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-08852
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 A.A., et al., Case No. 25-cv-08852-JSC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 9 v. EXERCISE OF CAFA JURISDICTION

10 META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, bring claims against Defendant 14 under California law alleging Defendant recorded Plaintiffs’ activities on a website that sells 15 treatment and medications for sexual and reproductive health. (Dkt. No. 1-1.)1 Defendant 16 removed the action to federal court, alleging this Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action 17 Fairness Act (“CAFA”). (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 8-23.) In support of CAFA jurisdiction, Defendant 18 alleges the putative class has thousands of individuals, there is minimal diversity because “at least 19 one member of the purported class is a citizen of a state other than Delaware or California,” and 20 the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. (Id. ¶¶ 10-23.) 21 The Court ORDERS the parties to show cause as to why the local controversy exception or 22 the home state exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction do not apply to this case. “Under the local 23 controversy exception, a district court ‘shall’ decline to exercise jurisdiction when more than two- 24 thirds of the putative class members are citizens of the state where the action was filed, the 25 principal injuries occurred in that same state, and at least one significant defendant is a citizen of 26 that state.” Adams v. W. Marine Prods., Inc., 958 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting 28 27 1 U.S.C. § 1332(D)(4)(A)). Similarly, under the “mandatory home state exception,” the Court 2 “shall” decline to exercise jurisdiction where the primary defendants and putative class members 3 are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed. Adams, 958 F.3d at 1220 (citing 4 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B)). And under the “discretionary home state exception,” a district court 5 “may” decline to exercise jurisdiction if the primary defendants and one-third of class members 6 are citizens of the state where the action was originally filed. Adams, 958 F.3d at 1220 (quoting 7 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3)). “[A] district court may raise sua sponte an exception to 8 CAFA jurisdiction.” Adams, 958 F.3d at 1224. 9 The Court’s review of the Complaint and the Notice of Removal supports an inference 10 these exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction apply. Plaintiffs are California citizens, Defendant is a 11 citizen of Delaware and California, and the putative class is defined as “all persons in the state of 12 California” whose information Defendant recorded. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 15; Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶¶ 8, 9, 70.) 13 So, the CAFA exceptions likely apply because the sole defendant is a California citizen, the 14 invasions of privacy occurred in California, and the class’s exclusive composition of “persons in 15 … California” suggests at least 33% or 66% of class members are California citizens. Defendant 16 does not allege the citizenship composition of class members, except that “at least one member of 17 the putative class is a citizen of a state other than Delaware or California.” (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 18.) 18 When the parties estimate a class size of “thousands,” (id. ¶ 23; Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶ 74), an allegation 19 “at least one” class member is not a California citizen is not enough to show the exceptions to 20 CAFA do not apply. 21 In light of the above, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to how the local 22 controversy exception or the home state exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction do not apply to this case. 23 Defendant shall file a written response to this Order by February 6, 2026. Plaintiff shall file a 24 response by February 13, 2026. The Court VACATES the January 29, 2026 hearing on 25 Defendant’s motion to dismiss and will advise the parties as to a future hearing date if the Court 26 determines it can exercise CAFA jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case. 27 // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: January 26, 2026 , ne 3 JACSUELINE SCOTT CORLE 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll a 12

15 16

Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28