Wadley v. Meta Platforms Inc

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 20, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-06056
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 GILBRIANNA WADLEY, Case No. 24-cv-06056-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 v.

11 META PLATFORMS INC., 12 Defendant.

13 In this action, Gilbrianna Wadley seeks injunctive relief against Meta Platforms, 14 apparently to force Meta to prevent its users from accessing photographs of her. In her 15 Complaint, which she filed in Texas state court, Wadley references violations of her 16 Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as various other privacy-related claims, such as 17 allegations of stalking and harassment and violations of her “right to be forgotten.” Meta 18 removed this action to federal court in the Northern District of Texas, asserting jurisdiction 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 given Wadley’s invocation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and 20 sought and obtained transfer to this District on the basis of a forum selection clause in its 21 terms of service. 22 Upon review of Wadley’s complaint and Meta’s briefing, the Court is concerned 23 that removal was improper. Meta sought removal based on a reference to the Fourteenth 24 Amendment, but as Meta itself acknowledges, the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply 25 to private entities like Meta. Mot. to Dismiss (dkt. 8) at 21. Because Wadley’s passing 26 reference to the Fourteenth Amendment does not state a viable claim, and the remainder of 27 her Complaint appears to raise exclusively state-law tort claims, there does not appear to 1 1760339, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013) (allegations of constitutional violations at the 2 hands of private entities cannot supply removal jurisdiction); accord Muharib Inv. Grp. v. 3 Starks, 2024 WL 1349180, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2024); Burcaw v. Allegheny 4 Wesleyan Methodist Connection, 2007 WL 2254722, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2007). 5 Meta is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by Monday, September 30 why this 6 action should not be remanded to Texas state court. Failure to respond will result in sua 7 sponte remand to Texas state court. See Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. 8 Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998) (“If a district court lacks subject matter 9 jurisdiction over a removed action, it has the duty to remand it.”). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: September 20, 2024 CHARLES R. BREYER 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27