Yoon v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 MARY YOON, et al., Case No. 24-cv-02612-NC 5 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 6 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT 7 META PLATFORMS, INC., FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 8 Defendant.

9 Re: ECF 24, 29, 31 10 This Court orders Plaintiffs and Defendant to show cause why this case should not || be remanded back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are || courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, = 13 || 377 (1994). District courts have subject matter jurisdiction through federal question or || diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Federal question jurisdiction requires that || the case “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. || § 1331. District courts also have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are || “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of = 18 || the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

19 Defendant claims this Court has federal question jurisdiction and supplemental || jurisdiction due to Plaintiffs’ claims under the federal Wiretap Act. ECF 1 995, 8.

21 || However, both parties fail to address how Plaintiffs’ withdrawal of their only federal || claims in the complaint affects the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. ECF 29 at 1 n.1.

23 Accordingly, both parties must show cause in writing by December 3, 2024, why || this case should not be remanded back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

27 || Dated: November 19, 2024 &e——— NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 28 United States Magistrate Judge