Don't Tread on Us, LLC v. Twitter, Inc.
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-02461
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Don’t Tread on Us v. Twitter, Judge Donato remanded the case for lack of federal jurisdiction and denied attorney’s fees.
Don’t Tread on Us, LLC and Twitter, Inc.; the case will proceed in the Florida state court from which it was removed, rather than in federal court.
What happened
Don’t Tread on Us, LLC sued Twitter, Inc. in Florida state court, alleging that Twitter breached a contract by refusing to restore its accounts under an “amnesty” policy. Twitter removed the case to federal court, and the case was later transferred to the Northern District of California.
Twitter relied on diversity jurisdiction, which requires claims involving citizens of different states and more than $75,000 in dispute. Judge Donato found that the complaint’s statement that damages might exceed $50,000 did not plausibly meet that threshold. A civil cover sheet claiming the case was worth more than $100,000, and an unsupported theory about lost followers, did not establish federal jurisdiction.
Judge James Donato remanded the case to the Florida state court from which it was removed. He denied Don’t Tread on Us, LLC’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, and terminated all pending motions and deadlines as moot.
The detailed version
- Don't Tread on Us, LLC v. Twitter, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-02461
- James Donato
- Jan. 3, 2024
Background
Don’t Tread on Us, LLC sued Twitter, Inc. in Florida state court for alleged breach of contract. The claim concerned Twitter’s refusal to restore the plaintiff’s accounts under an “amnesty” policy. Twitter removed the action to a federal court in Florida, which later transferred it to the Northern District of California. The plaintiff asked the court to remand the case, meaning return it to state court, and requested attorney’s fees and costs related to the removal.
Jurisdiction
Twitter asserted federal subject-matter jurisdiction only through diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires different-state citizenship between the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
The court held that Twitter had not shown a plausible amount in controversy above $75,000. The complaint alleged one breach-of-contract claim and stated that the damages might “exceed the value of $50,000,” which did not establish that the statutory threshold was met. The complaint and removal notice also did not identify a legal basis for potential attorney’s fees that could raise the amount above $75,000.
The court rejected Twitter’s reliance on a civil cover sheet stating that the claim was valued at “over $100,000.” The court explained that it generally looks first to the complaint when determining the amount in controversy. Twitter’s theory that the plaintiff’s lost followers could be assigned a dollar value was also unsupported because Twitter provided no evidence valuing the accounts or followers. The court did not decide whether that valuation approach was legally valid.
Attorney’s Fees and Disposition
The court remanded the case to the Florida state court from which it was removed because the case had been removed without federal jurisdiction. It denied the plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), finding that the record did not show Twitter’s removal was objectively unreasonable. The court terminated all pending motions and deadlines as moot.
Judge James Donato entered the order on January 3, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.