Mirmalek v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC

Background

Taliah Mirmalek filed a proposed class action in California state court against Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, which the opinion identifies as the owner and operator of the LATimes.com website. She alleges that three third-party trackers installed on website visitors’ browsers collected their IP addresses without consent or a court order. She claims that the trackers were “pen registers” under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code § 638.51(a).

The proposed class consists of California residents who accessed the website in California and had their IP addresses collected by the trackers. Los Angeles Times Communications removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, a federal law that can give federal courts jurisdiction over certain class actions. Mirmalek moved to remand, or return, the case to California state court under the Act’s mandatory and discretionary home-state exceptions.

Analysis

For the mandatory home-state exception, Mirmalek had to show that more than two-thirds of the proposed class members were California citizens. The court found that the class size was unknown: the complaint described the class as potentially numbering “thousands, if not millions,” but offered no more specific evidence. Without knowing the total class size, the court could not calculate the required percentage.

The court also found that Mirmalek’s evidence did not establish the citizenship of the proposed class. She cited the number of California residents eligible to vote and argued that the newspaper primarily serves a California audience. The court explained that this did not show how many people who accessed the website and were tracked were California citizens. The court therefore held that she had not proved that more than two-thirds of the proposed class were California citizens.

The court reached the same conclusion concerning the discretionary home-state exception, which requires evidence that more than one-third but less than two-thirds of the class members are citizens of the state where the action began. Because Mirmalek had not shown that even more than one-third of the proposed class were California citizens, the court did not apply the exception’s discretionary factors.

Jurisdictional Discovery and Disposition

Mirmalek alternatively requested jurisdictional discovery, meaning limited fact gathering about whether federal jurisdiction exists, and permission to renew her remand motion. The court concluded that discovery might provide information about the total number of tracked website users and their citizenship at the time of removal.

Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Mirmalek’s motion to remand without prejudice to renewing it based on facts uncovered during discovery. The court also ordered that she may conduct limited jurisdictional discovery concerning only the size and citizenship of the proposed class.