Dupraz v. DOES 1-10
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:22-cv-07709
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Dupraz v. DOES 1-10, Judge Westmore ordered plaintiffs to explain federal jurisdiction and vacated Meta’s subpoena hearing.
Plaintiffs Leonard Dupraz and Celeste Lee, the Doe defendants, and nonparty Meta Platforms, Inc.; the order requires the plaintiffs to address whether the federal court has jurisdiction and postpones the subpoena hearing.
What happened
Leonard Dupraz and Celeste Lee sued unidentified defendants, alleging that their Instagram accounts were hacked and disabled. They also served a subpoena on Meta Platforms, which owns Instagram, seeking information related to the accounts.
The complaint asserted four claims, including one under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The court questioned whether that claim supported federal-court jurisdiction because the allegations appeared to concern unauthorized access to Instagram accounts, rather than damage to or alteration of plaintiffs’ computers or phones.
The court ordered plaintiffs to show by August 31, 2023, why federal-question jurisdiction exists, and told them to identify facts supporting improper access to their devices. Judge Kandis Westmore also vacated the August 17 hearing on Meta’s motion to quash the subpoena, to be reset after the jurisdiction issue is resolved.
The detailed version
- Dupraz v. DOES 1-10 · No. 4:22-cv-07709
- Kandis Westmore
- Aug. 11, 2023
Background
Leonard Dupraz and Celeste Lee filed suit against Doe defendants, alleging that their Instagram accounts were hacked and then disabled. They alleged that they could not reactivate the accounts. In February 2023, they served an amended subpoena on Meta Platforms, Inc., the nonparty that owns Instagram. Meta moved to quash the subpoena, and a hearing had been set for August 17, 2023.
Jurisdictional concern
The complaint asserted four causes of action, only one of which was federal: a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a federal statute that generally imposes criminal penalties for computer-related offenses but provides a limited private civil claim in certain circumstances. The court explained that the civil claim requires a qualifying loss of at least $5,000 in value.
The court said the federal claim appeared to center on the disabling of plaintiffs’ Instagram accounts. It noted that the statute addresses actual damage to or impairment of a protected computer, such as corrupted files, and that the Ninth Circuit had declined to extend civil liability under the statute to public websites such as Instagram. The operative complaint alleged that Doe defendants accessed plaintiffs’ computers and/or cellular phones, retrieved data, and altered online accounts, but the court found those allegations conclusory and lacking a factual basis showing that the devices were accessed or that files on them were altered or corrupted. The court stated that the factual allegations instead concerned improper access to Instagram.
Order
The court ordered plaintiffs to show cause—that is, to explain—by August 31, 2023, why federal-question jurisdiction exists. Plaintiffs were directed either to cite facts in the original complaint that plausibly suggest their computers or cell phones were improperly accessed, or to file and cite an amended complaint. The court also stated that plaintiffs could voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit and refile it in state court.
The order did not dismiss the case. It stated that, after reviewing plaintiffs’ response, the court may hold a hearing or reassign the case to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Kandis Westmore vacated the August 17 hearing on Meta’s motion to quash and said the hearing would be reset after the jurisdictional issue was resolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.