Rodriguez v. Meta Platforms Inc et al
| Sofia Rodriguez |
| Meta Platforms Inc, Facebook Holdings LLC, Facebook Operations LLC, Facebook Payments Inc, Facebook Technologies LLC, Instagram LLC, Siculus Inc, Snap Inc, TikTok Inc and ByteDance Inc |
| 1:2022cv05230 |
| September 26, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 24, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| ELECTRONIC Acknowledgement of case transferred to California Northern District as case 4:22-cv-06436, filed 10/24/2022. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 20 TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of California the electronic record. (aee, ) |
| Filing 19 CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER from MDL Panel transferring case to Northern District of California. (aee, ) |
| Civil Case Terminated pursuant to MDL (3047) Conditional Transfer Order filed 10/19/2022. (aee, ) |
| Filing 18 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Sofia Rodriguez to Order to Submit Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement (Richardson, Clinton) |
| Filing 17 AFFIDAVIT of Service filed by Plaintiff Sofia Rodriguez regarding Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet and Summons as to TikTok, Inc. served on Jenn Bautista, Authorized Agent for Service of Process on 9/30/2022 (Richardson, Clinton) |
| Filing 16 AFFIDAVIT of Service filed by Plaintiff Sofia Rodriguez regarding Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet and Summons as to Snap Inc. served on Jenn Bautista, Authorized Agent for Service of Process on 9/30/2022 (Richardson, Clinton) |
| Filing 15 AFFIDAVIT of Service filed by Plaintiff Sofia Rodriguez regarding Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet and Summons as to ByteDance, Inc. served on Jenn Bautista, Authorized Agent for Service of Process on 9/30/2022 (Richardson, Clinton) |
| Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion to strike the waiver of service (Dckt. No. #12 ) is hereby granted. The Court strikes the waiver of service that erroneously referred to all defendants (Dckt. No. #4 ). Mailed notice (jjr, ) |
| Filing 13 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the complaint, which invokes this Court's diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff Sofia Rodriguez, an Illinois citizen, sued 10 different corporations and limited liability companies. A corporation is not the same thing as a limited liability company, and for jurisdictional purposes, the analysis is completely different. A corporation is a citizen of the state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. Not so for an LLC. A limited liability company is a citizen wherever its members are citizens. It makes no difference where a limited liability company is registered, or where it has its principal place of business. For an LLC, the citizenship of its members is all that matters. See Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Mkt. Place, LLC, 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003); Martin v. Living Essentials, LLC, 653 Fed. Appx. 482, 485 (7th Cir. 2016) ("[T]he home 'base' of a limited liability company, or LLC, is irrelevant, given that an LLC has the citizenship of each of its members."); Thomas v. Guardmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007) ("For diversity jurisdictional purposes, the citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of its members."); Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) ("[T]he citizenship of an LLC for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members."); Fellowes, Inc. v. Changzhou Xinrui Fellowes Office Equip. Co., 759 F.3d 787, 787-88 (7th Cir. 2014). Here, the jurisdictional allegations are not as clear as they need to be. One of the problems is that the paragraphs about the subsidiaries (para. 2025) do not reveal whether the entities are corporations or LLCs, thus forcing this Court to flip back and forth to try to figure things out. This Court is done flipping. In the interest of clarity, the Court orders the following. By October 15, 2022, Plaintiff must file a supplemental jurisdictional statement that provides all information that this Court needs to assess the citizenship of the parties. The Court requires user-friendly information, by defendant. For each corporation, the statement must identify the entity's state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. For each LLC, the statement must identify each member by name, and must identify the citizenship of that person or entity. See West v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 951 F.3d 827, 829 (7th Cir. 2020) ("We've held repeatedly that there's no such thing as a [state name here] partnership or LLC, that only the partners' or members' citizenships matter, and that their identities and citizenships must be revealed.") (brackets and emphasis in original). If the members of an LLC are themselves LLCs, then the parties must identify those members with particularity and establish their citizenship. That is, a plaintiff must drill down to each level until hitting jurisdictional bedrock (meaning a corporation or a natural person). See West, 951 F.3d at 829 ("[I]f any partner is itself a partnership or limited liability company, then the identity of each member of each of these entities must be traced until we reach a corporation or natural person."); Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004) (stating that the citizenship of an LLC "need[s] to be traced through multiple levels if any of its members is itself a partnership or LLC"); Meyerson v. Showboat Marina Casino Partnership, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002) ("[T]he citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced through however many layers of partners or members there may be. Failure to go through all the layers can result in dismissal for want of jurisdiction.") (citation omitted). A failure to comply will lead to dismissal. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 12 MOTION by Plaintiff Sofia Rodriguez to strike waiver of service executed #4 09/28/2022 (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Flowers, Peter) |
| Filing 11 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Sofia Rodriguez. Siculus Inc waiver sent on 9/28/2022, answer due 11/28/2022. (Richardson, Clinton) |
| Filing 10 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Sofia Rodriguez. Instagram LLC waiver sent on 9/28/2022, answer due 11/28/2022. (Richardson, Clinton) |
| Filing 9 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Sofia Rodriguez. Facebook Technologies LLC waiver sent on 9/28/2022, answer due 11/28/2022. (Richardson, Clinton) |
| Filing 8 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Sofia Rodriguez. Facebook Payments Inc waiver sent on 9/28/2022, answer due 11/28/2022. (Richardson, Clinton) |
| Filing 7 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Sofia Rodriguez. Facebook Operations LLC waiver sent on 9/28/2022, answer due 11/28/2022. (Richardson, Clinton) |
| Filing 6 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Sofia Rodriguez. Facebook Holdings LLC waiver sent on 9/28/2022, answer due 11/28/2022. (Richardson, Clinton) |
| Filing 5 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Sofia Rodriguez. Meta Platforms Inc waiver sent on 9/28/2022, answer due 11/28/2022. (Richardson, Clinton) |
| Filing 4 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Sofia Rodriguez. All Defendants. (Richardson, Clinton) |
| Filing 3 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by December 12, 2022. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sofia Rodriguez by Peter J. Flowers (Flowers, Peter) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants ByteDance Inc, Facebook Holdings LLC, Facebook Operations LLC, Facebook Payments Inc, Facebook Technologies LLC, Instagram LLC, Meta Platforms Inc, Siculus Inc, Snap Inc, TikTok Inc (dxb, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Sofia Rodriguez; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-19877625. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Flowers, Peter) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey I. Cummings. Case assignment: Random assignment. (jk2, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (jk2, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
