# (PS) Bledsoe v. Facebook > District Court, E.D. California · September 30, 2019 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10014205 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** September 30, 2019 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10014205 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - finding that Facebook is a citizen of 27 California ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONNELL BLEDSOE, No. 2:18-cv-2756-JAM-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FACEBOOK; MARK ZUCKERBERG, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1 His 18 declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 3. 19 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 20 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 21 inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 22 allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 23 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. As discussed 24 below, plaintiff’s complaint fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction over his various state law 25 claims, and it must therefore be dismissed. 26 ///// 27 1 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 28 undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those cases 2 authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 3 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer 4 “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction 5 requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a 6 “case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be 7 authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal 8 jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity 9 jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the 10 matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World 11 Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction 12 of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of 13 subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys 14 Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 15 Plaintiff brings this action against Facebook, Inc. and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, alleging 16 state law claims for negligence and breach of contract. ECF Nos. 1, 2. The complaint alleges 17 that in 2017, plaintiff’s “Facebook account was hacked for almost a month.” ECF No. 2 at 1. 18 Plaintiff reached out to Facbook’s technical support team regarding this matter, but was provided 19 no assistance. Id. When he finally was able to regain access to his account, plaintiff discovered 20 that four months of his data had been deleted. Id. Among the deleted data was “an 8 year 21 Documentary with Facebook,” which plaintiff believes Facebook has sold “to the highest bidder 22 on the black market.” Id. 23 The complaint, however, fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s 24 claims. Federal question jurisdiction is lacking as plaintiff only alleges state law claims. See 28 25 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising 26 under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States). Furthermore, the complaint fails to 27 demonstrate complete diversity of the parties necessary to confer diversity jurisdiction. See 28 Bautista, 828 F.2d at 552 (to establish diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege 1 the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.). 2 Although plaintiff alleges that he resides in Stockton, California, the complaint is silent as to the 3 defendants’ citizenship.2 Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject 4 matter jurisdiction. 5 Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint, if he can allege a basis for this 6 court’s jurisdiction, as well as a cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient 7 facts in support of that cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 8 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any 9 deficiency in their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the 10 amended complaint shall clearly set forth the allegations against each defendant and shall specify 11 a basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Any amended complaint shall plead plaintiff’s 12 claims in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of 13 circumstances,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), and shall be in double- 14 spaced text on paper that bears line numbers in the left margin, as required by Eastern District of 15 California Local Rules 130(b) and 130(c). Any amended complaint shall also use clear headings 16 to delineate each claim alleged and against which defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as 17 required by Rule 10(b), and must plead clear facts that support each claim under each header. 18 Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to 19 make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 20 complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the 21 original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once 22 plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. 23 24 2 It is worth noting that several district courts have found that Facebooks is a citizen of California because its principle place of business is located in Palo Alto, California. See, e.g., 25 Fteja v. Facebook, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 2d 829, 832 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) “Facebook is a Delaware 26 corporation with its principle place of business in Palo Alto.”); E.K.D. ex. Rel. Dawes v. Facebook, Inc., 885 F. Supp. 894, 897 n.1 (S.D. Ill. 2012) (finding that Facebook is a citizen of 27 California); Dennis v. Zuckerberg, 2017 WL 3873761, at * n.1 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 5, 2017) (“Facebook is a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in California, and Mr. 28 Zuckerberg is a citizen of California.”). 1 | Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not 2 | alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 3 | 1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik v. 4 | Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to 5 || comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order 6 || may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is granted. 9 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as provided herein. 10 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 11 || complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must 12 || be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in 13 || accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed. 14 | DATED: September 30, 2019. 15 tid, PDEA 16 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10014205. Public record. Not legal advice.