Scott v. Platforms
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-09955
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Natalie Scott v. Meta Platforms, Judge Morrison transferred the case and denied Meta’s dismissal motion without prejudice to renewal.
Natalie Scott’s case is transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the Northern District of California. Meta’s dismissal motion remains available for renewal after transfer, and the current court closed the action on its docket.
What happened
In Natalie Scott v. Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Meta asked the court either to dismiss the case or transfer it. The dispute involved Facebook’s Terms of Use, which contained a clause requiring related disputes to be brought in the Northern District of California or a state court in San Mateo County.
The court found that the clause was valid, enforceable, mandatory, and binding. It also found that the clause had been reasonably communicated to Scott. Scott argued mainly that keeping the case in the current district would be more convenient for her, but the court found those arguments insufficient to show that transfer would be unfair or that the clause was invalid.
Judge Nina R. Morrison granted Meta’s transfer request and transferred the case to the Northern District of California. Judge Morrison denied Meta’s dismissal motion without prejudice to renewal after the transfer. The court closed the action on its docket.
The detailed version
- Scott v. Platforms · No. 3:25-cv-09955
- Thomas Hixson
- Oct. 24, 2025
Background
Meta Platforms, Inc. moved to dismiss Natalie Scott’s case or, alternatively, to transfer it. The court reviewed Meta’s motion and supporting filings, Scott’s opposition, and the applicable Facebook Terms of Use.
Forum-selection clause
The court held that the Terms of Use contained a valid and enforceable forum-selection clause. A forum-selection clause is a contract provision identifying where disputes must be litigated. The clause stated that claims or disputes arising from or relating to the Terms of Use or use of Meta products had to be resolved exclusively in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court in San Mateo County.
The court found that the clause was reasonably communicated to Scott when she agreed to the Terms of Use before using Facebook. It also found that the clause was mandatory and binding on the parties. The court noted that some of Scott’s arguments relied on the Terms of Use being binding, including arguments that Meta had not followed those terms.
Arguments against transfer
After Meta established the clause’s enforceability, Scott had to make a strong showing that enforcing it would be unreasonable or unjust, or that the clause was invalid because of fraud, overreaching, or similar reasons. The court found that she had not done so. Her arguments primarily concerned the convenience of litigating in the current district, and the court found that those arguments did not show that transfer would be unreasonable or unjust or that the clause was invalid.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part Meta’s motion. It granted Meta’s motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), transferring the proceeding to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. It denied Meta’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal after the transfer, leaving that motion for the transferee court to decide. The court ordered that no summons issue from its court, closed the action on its docket, and directed the clerk to mail the order to Scott, who was representing herself.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.