Cancer Step Outside the Box, LLC v. Department of State

Background

The court had previously denied transfer motions filed by X Corp. (formerly Twitter, Inc.), Meta Platforms, Inc., and Google LLC. The court had found that the forum-selection clauses in Meta’s and Google’s user agreements with the plaintiffs were applicable, valid, and enforceable. But it had kept the entire case in Tennessee because the interests of the parties without forum-selection agreements, along with judicial efficiency, weighed against transferring only some claims. The court had also understood that the Northern District of California might not be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over X Corp. or the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc. (CCDH).

Meta and Google moved for reconsideration of that earlier order. Reconsideration is a request to revise an earlier order before final judgment. They asked the court to transfer the entire case to the Northern District of California or, alternatively, to separate and transfer the claims against them. They argued that the circumstances had changed because X Corp. no longer opposed transferring the entire case and because other related cases might be consolidated in California. The federal agency defendants took no position against transfer but wanted the case kept together. CCDH had not entered an appearance.

The plaintiffs opposed reconsideration. They argued that Meta and Google had not shown an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or manifest injustice—the recognized grounds the court described for reconsidering an interlocutory order.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that X Corp.’s non-opposition placed the case in a materially different position. That change affected the court’s earlier analysis of whether the case should remain together in Tennessee. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed claims against two other non-governmental, non-contracting defendants, making the claims against CCDH less integral to the claims against the media defendants and federal agency defendants. CCDH could later object to personal jurisdiction in California if it entered the case, but the court found that possibility provided only a slight reason to retain the case in Tennessee.

The court determined that the forum-selection agreements favored transfer, while the interests of the non-contracting defendants weighed only slightly against it. Transferring the case as a whole would honor the forum-selection agreements and avoid the inefficiencies of splitting the case. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the Northern District of California would be hostile to their claims, stating that the California court could fairly and equitably consider them.

Disposition

The court granted the Motion to Reconsider, vacated its earlier order denying transfer, and transferred the case in its entirety to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Note on the source information

The supplied case metadata identifies the court as the Northern District of California, but the opinion’s caption identifies the issuing court as the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. The date in the metadata is a filing date; the opinion text itself does not state a separate opinion date.