Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC
- William Alsup
- 3:22-cv-01101
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC, Judge Alsup denied plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs’ motion was denied; the order concerns the plaintiffs and the defendants in the case.
What happened
In Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC, the plaintiffs asked the court to dismiss the case because they believed the court lacked authority to hear it.
The court declined to apply a different rule to cases first filed in federal court and followed a prior Court of Appeals decision. It said the risks of choosing a favorable court and manipulating the forum were equally significant.
Judge William Alsup denied the plaintiffs’ motion. He said the order did not need to decide whether he could dismiss the case or continue it under supplemental jurisdiction, and stated that he would decide the matter on its merits.
The detailed version
- Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC · No. 3:22-cv-01101
- William Alsup
- May 29, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning they argued that the federal court lacked legal authority to hear the dispute. The defendants were Instagram, LLC; Facebook Operations, LLC; Meta Platforms, Inc.; and John Does 1–10.
Court’s Reasoning
The court found no reason to use a different rule for cases originally filed in federal court. It followed the Court of Appeals’ holding in United Steel v. Shell Oil, 602 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010), stating that the risks of forum-shopping and manipulation were just as great.
The court did not decide whether the district judge had discretion to dismiss the case or continue it under supplemental jurisdiction. The order stated that, because substantial time and effort had been spent on the case, the judge would decide the matter on its merits.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not itself decide the underlying merits of the dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.