Dana Soft Pty Ltd v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-03821
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Dana Soft Pty Ltd v. Meta Platforms, Judge Hixson ordered Dana to show its owners’ citizenship or face dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Dana Soft Pty Ltd must provide information about the citizenship of its members or owners; the action may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if Dana does not respond by September 16, 2025. Meta Platforms, Inc. is the defendant in the action.
What happened
In Dana Soft Pty Ltd v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Dana brought four state-law claims against Meta: breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. Dana said the court had authority to hear the case because the parties were citizens of different states or countries.
The court found no federal-question jurisdiction because Dana’s claims arose under state law. It also said Dana had not adequately shown diversity jurisdiction because, although Dana identified itself as an Australian limited liability company and Meta as a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California, Dana did not identify the citizenship of its members or owners.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered Dana to file a written response explaining the citizenship of its members or owners by September 16, 2025. The order states that failing to respond will result in dismissal of the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Dana Soft Pty Ltd v. Meta Platforms, Inc. · No. 3:25-cv-03821
- Thomas Hixson
- Sept. 9, 2025
Background
Dana Soft Pty Ltd sued Meta Platforms, Inc. on four claims: breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. The opinion states that all of these claims arise under state law. Dana alleged that the court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Jurisdictional issue
The court explained that federal courts have limited authority and must independently confirm that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. It ruled that federal-question jurisdiction was unavailable because Dana’s claims did not arise under federal law.
The court then examined diversity jurisdiction. Dana alleged that it was an Australian limited liability company with its principal place of business in Australia, and that Meta was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. But the court explained that a limited liability company’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of its members and owners. Dana had not alleged the citizenship of those members or owners, and Dana bears the burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction.
Order
The court ordered Dana to show cause by filing a written response addressing the citizenship of Dana Soft Pty Ltd’s members or owners. The response was due September 16, 2025. The order states that failure to respond will result in dismissal of the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion does not state that the action was dismissed in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.