Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04145/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04145-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04145-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FRANCO CARACCIOLI,

Plaintiff,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-04145-EJD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff Franco Caraccioli (“Plaintiff”) commenced the instant action on September 11, 

2015, against Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Defendant”), and filed a First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”) on September 21, 2015. See Docekt Item Nos. 1, 8. As is its obligation, this court has 

reviewed the FAC to determine whether Plaintiff included allegations sufficient to establish 

federal jurisdiction and has been guided by the principles that govern such an inquiry. See

Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir. 2013). First, it is mindful that, in 

contrast to state courts, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian

Life Ins. Co of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal jurisdiction can generally arise in two 

ways: (1) from the presence of a federal question, or (2) from diversity of the parties. See 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. For jurisdiction based on a federal question, the court looks to the face of a

“well-pleaded complaint” to determine whether a cause of action is created by federal law or

whether the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question

of federal law. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808 (1988) (citing

Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). 

“Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule . . . a suit ‘arises under’ federal law ‘only 

Case 5:15-cv-04145-EJD Document 10 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04145-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal 

law].’” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (quoting Louisville & Nashville R. Co. 

v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)). Factual allegations, and not labels, are determinative of 

whether a cause of action actually presents a federal question. See Labram v. Havel, 43 F.3d 918, 

920 (4th Cir. 1995).

Second, the court must look to the FAC’s jurisdictional allegations because “[a] party

invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual existence of subject

matter jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996). To that end,

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires the plaintiff to provide “a short and plain statement of 

the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” 

Here, federal question jurisdiction is not clearly established by the FAC. That pleading 

reveals that Plaintiff asserts ten causes of action against Defendant, none of which are created by

federal law. Nor do the factual allegations demonstrate that Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal 

law despite their labels. Thus, on the face of the FAC, federal jurisdiction is not apparent. 

Perhaps in recognition of this deficiency, Plaintiff alleges in the FAC’s jurisdictional 

statement that “this case involves substantial issues of federal law involving the Communications 

Decency Act 47 U.S.C. § 230.” See FAC, at ¶ 23. But that allegation, and the discussion of the 

statute in other areas of the FAC, is still not enough for Plaintiff to satisfy his obligation to 

establish federal jurisdiction. This is because § 230, which generally works to immunize

providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third 

parties, is not a claim for relief asserted by Plaintiff. Instead, it is a potential affirmative defense

to Plaintiff’s claims, no matter its artful inclusion in the FAC. Affirmative defenses are not proper 

bases for federal jurisdiction. See Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 817 F.2d 72, (9th Cir. 1987) 

(“[A] claim ‘arises under’ federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction on the basis of a 

well-pleaded complaint, not from anticipation of possible affirmative defenses.”). 

Accordingly, the court issues an order to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff does not, by October 6, 2015,

Case 5:15-cv-04145-EJD Document 10 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-04145-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

demonstrate in writing the basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction in a manner consistent 

with the discussion above, the court will dismiss this action without prejudice so that Plaintiff may 

properly assert the claims in state court. See Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 

846, 847 (9th Cir. 1999). To be clear, any response to this order must identify which portions of 

the FAC in its current form assert a federal claim by (1) identifying the federal law at issue, and 

(2) specifying the existing allegations relevant to such a claim. 

No hearing will be held on the Order to Show Cause unless ordered by the court. The 

“Motion for the District Court to Hear the Case and not an Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Program” (Docket Item No. 6) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04145-EJD Document 10 Filed 09/22/15 Page 3 of 3