Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 29, 2024
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01101
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4 5 DAWN DANGAARD, KELLY GILBERT, JENNIFER ALBAUGH, and all other 6 similarly situated, No. 22-cv-01101-WHA 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK 8 v. OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 9 || INSTAGRAM, LLC, FACEBOOK OPERATIONS, LLC, META 10 || PLATFORMS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1- 10, 11 Defendants. qg 12 plo) = Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is hereby DENIED. 14 This order finds no reason to apply a different rule for cases originally filed in federal court 15 and depart from our court of appeal’s holding in United Steel v. Shell Oil, 602 F.3d 1087, 1091 16 = (9th Cir. 2010). The risk of forum-shopping and manipulation is just as great. 17 = This order need not reach the issue of whether or not the district judge has discretion to Z 18 dismiss this case or continue with the case, 1.e., treating the matter as under the rubric of 19 supplemental jurisdiction (or not). In this instance, so much time and effort has been put into 20 the case, that the undersigned judge will decide this matter on the merits. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: May 29, 2024. 25 26 af Pee 27 WILLIAM ALSUP 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE