Unbeatablesale.com, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-03719
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In UnbeatableSale.com v. Meta, Judge Donato dismissed the complaint and ordered UBS to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
UnbeatableSale.com, Inc. faced dismissal of its complaint and the possibility of dismissal of the entire case; Meta Platforms, Inc. and the court were affected by UBS’s failure to prosecute.
What happened
UnbeatableSale.com, Inc. sued Meta Platforms, Inc. over the removal of UBS’s posted content, alleging breach of contract. A New Jersey court transferred the case to the Northern District of California under a contractual forum-selection clause.
After the transfer, UBS did not respond to Meta’s motion to dismiss, did not have a lawyer appear in the district, and took no other action to move the case forward. The court said this complete inaction justified ending the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Judge Donato dismissed the complaint and gave UBS until January 19, 2024, to explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed entirely. The court said that failing to respond would result in dismissal under Rule 41(b), while reserving a final decision on whether any dismissal would allow UBS to amend its complaint.
The detailed version
- Unbeatablesale.com, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-03719
- James Donato
- Jan. 9, 2024
Background
UnbeatableSale.com, Inc. sued Meta Platforms, Inc. in the District of New Jersey on one breach-of-contract claim concerning Meta’s removal of UBS’s posted content. In July 2023, the New Jersey court transferred the case to the Northern District of California based on a contractual forum-selection clause.
After the transfer, UBS’s New Jersey lawyer did not apply to appear in the district, and no other lawyer appeared for UBS. UBS also did not oppose or otherwise respond to Meta’s motion to dismiss, even after Meta obtained an extension of time for UBS to respond. Meta later told the court that the parties had agreed in principle to stop litigating and were discussing settlement, but no formal notice of settlement was filed.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that UBS had given every indication that it had abandoned the case and did not intend to prosecute it. The court stated that UBS and its lawyer knew about Meta’s motion to dismiss and discussed an extension of time to respond, but never responded to the court or opposed the motion.
The court said UBS’s complete inaction justified terminating the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). That rule permits dismissal when a plaintiff does not pursue its case. The court also said UBS and its lawyer had imposed undue burdens on Meta and the court by failing to communicate about the case.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint. It also allowed UBS an opportunity to show cause—in other words, to explain in writing—why the case should not be dismissed in its entirety. The response was due January 19, 2024. The court stated that failure to respond would result in dismissal under Rule 41(b), and reserved a final order on whether dismissal of the complaint would be with leave to amend.
The opinion therefore contains both an express statement that the complaint was dismissed and a later direction giving UBS an opportunity to oppose dismissal of the entire case. It does not state that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.