Wadley v. Meta Platforms Inc
- Charles Breyer
- 3:24-cv-06056
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Wadley v. Meta Platforms Inc., Judge Breyer ordered Meta to explain why the case should not return to Texas state court because federal jurisdiction appeared lacking.
Gilbrianna Wadley and Meta Platforms Inc.; the order may determine whether the action remains in federal court or is returned to Texas state court.
What happened
Wadley v. Meta Platforms Inc. concerns Gilbrianna Wadley’s request for an order apparently requiring Meta to prevent users from accessing photographs of her. Her complaint referred to the Fourteenth Amendment and privacy-related claims involving stalking, harassment, and a “right to be forgotten.”
Meta removed the case from Texas state court to federal court, citing federal jurisdiction based on the Fourteenth Amendment reference. The case was later transferred to the Northern District of California under a forum-selection clause in Meta’s terms of service. The court questioned whether removal was proper because the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to private entities like Meta, and the remaining claims appeared to be state-law tort claims.
Judge Charles R. Breyer ordered Meta to explain by September 30, 2024, why the case should not be sent back to Texas state court. The court did not order a remand at this stage, but said that failure to respond would result in remand.
The detailed version
- Wadley v. Meta Platforms Inc · No. 3:24-cv-06056
- Charles Breyer
- Sept. 20, 2024
Background
Gilbrianna Wadley sued Meta Platforms Inc. seeking injunctive relief, apparently to require Meta to prevent its users from accessing photographs of her. Wadley filed the complaint in Texas state court. The complaint referred to alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations and other privacy-related matters, including stalking, harassment, and a claimed “right to be forgotten.”
Meta removed the action to federal court in the Northern District of Texas. It asserted federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the complaint referred to the Fourteenth Amendment. Meta later obtained a transfer to the Northern District of California based on a forum-selection clause in its terms of service.
Court’s concern about jurisdiction
After reviewing the complaint and Meta’s briefing, the court stated that it was concerned the removal may have been improper. The court noted that, as Meta itself acknowledged, the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to private entities such as Meta. The court further stated that Wadley’s passing reference to the amendment did not appear to state a viable federal claim and that the rest of the complaint appeared to raise exclusively state-law tort claims.
Order
The court ordered Meta to show cause—that is, to explain—by Monday, September 30, why the action should not be remanded, or returned, to Texas state court. The order stated that failure to respond would result in remand. The court did not itself remand the case in this order and did not decide the merits of Wadley’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.