Dana Soft Pty Ltd v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

Dana Soft Pty Ltd filed a contract action against Meta Platforms, Inc. Dana alleged that the court had federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 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.

The court previously ordered Dana to provide information about the citizenship of Dana’s members or owners. Dana then filed a First Amended Complaint, but the amended pleading still did not allege the citizenship of its members. Dana had provided information about the citizenship of its sole member in a response to the court’s order, but the court determined that it could not take judicial notice of that filing to establish diversity jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

The court relied on a recent Ninth Circuit decision stating that a district court may not establish diversity of citizenship solely through judicial notice. The party invoking federal subject-matter jurisdiction must plead and prove diversity jurisdiction. The court also noted that federal law permits courts to allow amendments correcting defective jurisdictional allegations.

Because Dana’s First Amended Complaint did not allege its members’ citizenship, it did not allege facts establishing complete diversity between Dana and Meta. The court concluded that allowing Dana to amend would not prejudice either party and would not be futile.

Order

The court invited Dana to file another amended complaint by November 20, 2025, to cure the defective jurisdictional allegations. Dana was permitted to amend only its jurisdictional allegations; the court did not grant permission to amend any other allegations in the First Amended Complaint. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered the order. The order did not decide the merits of Dana’s contract claims.