Gabryelle Daniels v. Meta Platforms Inc.

Background

Pro se plaintiff Gabryelle Daniels sued Meta Platforms Inc. for negligence involving Instagram. The complaint alleged that Daniels’s minor daughter, D.D., was sexually assaulted by three men she met on Instagram and another social-media platform unrelated to Meta. Daniels requested injunctive relief and monetary damages for emotional distress, medical bills, and the future therapy and emotional distress of D.D.’s siblings.

Meta moved to dismiss. Daniels also moved for default judgment.

Problems Identified in the Complaint

The court identified a possible statute-of-limitations problem. The alleged events occurred between November 12, 2021, and February 3, 2023, while the complaint was filed on June 9, 2025. The court noted that the limitations period was two years in California and Texas, but it did not resolve the choice-of-law issue. The court described the negligence claim as arguably untimely and directed Daniels to allege facts showing that the claim was not barred by the limitations period.

The court also explained that Daniels could proceed without a lawyer only for herself. Because she was not shown to be an attorney admitted to practice in the district, she could not represent her daughter or any other person. Any amended complaint had to make clear that the claims and requested relief concerned Daniels alone.

The court further held that Daniels had not plausibly alleged the elements of negligence: a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. The court stated that Daniels had not plausibly alleged any of these elements, especially the existence of a duty.

Rulings and Deadline

The court allowed Daniels to file an amended complaint consistent with the order by November 24, 2025. The order prohibited adding new parties or claims without the court’s prior consent and warned that failure to meet the deadline or otherwise comply could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The court denied Daniels’s motion for default judgment. It explained that the clerk had not entered Meta’s default and that Meta had filed a motion to dismiss. The court also denied Daniels’s request to appear remotely as moot and vacated the scheduled hearing on Meta’s motion. The provided opinion text does not expressly state a separate final disposition of Meta’s motion to dismiss beyond allowing amendment and identifying the complaint’s deficiencies.