A.A. v. PLATFORMS
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:25-cv-08852
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In A.A. v. Meta Platforms, Judge Corley ordered discovery into class members’ citizenship before deciding whether Class Action Fairness Act exceptions apply.
The plaintiffs, the proposed California class, and Meta Platforms, Inc.; the parties must plan discovery concerning class members’ citizenship.
What happened
A.A., et al. v. META PLATFORMS, INC. involves California-law claims alleging that Meta recorded users’ activities on a website selling sexual and reproductive health treatments and medications. Meta removed the putative class action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, or CAFA.
The court questioned whether CAFA’s local-controversy or home-state exceptions might require it to decline jurisdiction. The parties had not conducted enough discovery to establish the citizenship of class members, so the court did not make findings on whether either exception applied.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley ordered the parties to prepare a plan and deadlines for discovery into class members’ citizenship and set a case-management conference for April 1, 2026. The order did not decide the case’s underlying claims or whether the CAFA exceptions apply.
The detailed version
- A.A. v. PLATFORMS · No. 3:25-cv-08852
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 3, 2026
Background
Plaintiffs bring California-law claims on behalf of themselves and a putative class. They allege that Meta Platforms, Inc. recorded their activities on a website that sells treatment and medications for sexual and reproductive health. Meta removed the action from state court, asserting federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
The notice of removal stated that the plaintiffs are California citizens, Meta is a citizen of Delaware and California, and the proposed class consists of all persons in California whose information Meta recorded.
Jurisdictional issue
The court issued an order requiring the parties to address why CAFA’s local-controversy exception or home-state exception did not apply. These exceptions can require a federal court to decline to exercise CAFA jurisdiction when specified conditions are met.
Meta argued that the plaintiffs had the burden to make an evidentiary showing that an exception applied and had not met that burden. Plaintiffs responded that the parties and the court lacked enough evidence about class members’ citizenship and that discovery was needed to obtain that information.
Ruling
The court agreed with plaintiffs. It stated that the parties had not had an opportunity to conduct meaningful discovery into class members’ citizenship and that any findings based on the existing record would lack sufficient evidentiary support. The court therefore did not decide whether either CAFA exception applies.
The court set a case-management conference for April 1, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., by Zoom. It ordered the parties to file a joint statement one week before the conference containing a plan and deadlines for discovery into class members’ citizenship for purposes of determining whether the CAFA exceptions apply. The order did not rule on the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.