JPML Is Urged to Vacate or Stay Social Media Suit CTO Until Remand Ruling
Meta offers “little support" for its argument that a pending remand motion for a social media public nuisance lawsuit should be adjudicated in multidistrict litigation rather than in Connecticut, said plaintiffs V.V. and E.Q. in a Thursday reply in support…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
of a motion to vacate (docket 3:23-cv-00284) a conditional transfer order (CTO-4) to Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3047) under Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland. Facebook and Instagram parent Meta cited “common questions of fact” in an April opposition to plaintiffs’ V.V. and E.Q.’s April 6 memorandum in support of their motion to vacate CTO-4 (see 2304280037). The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation “explicitly encouraged transferor courts, not the transferee,” to rule on pending remand motions where possible, “particularly a motion to remand to state court,” said the reply. Meta doesn’t explain in its opposition why Northern California federal court “is in the best position to decide the issues of Second Circuit and Connecticut law controlling remand,” said the reply, saying joinder issues concerning Connecticut law “are unique to this case.” Plaintiffs don’t ask the Panel to make a decision on the merits of the underlying case, but the already-briefed motion to remand should “be allowed adequate time to be ruled upon in the district court.” There’s “no judicial economy" to having the MDL await review of a threshold jurisdictional question that's scheduled to be decided within weeks of the filing of the reply, plaintiffs said. As an alternative to vacating CTO-4, plaintiffs requested a 30-day stay to give the District of Connecticut adequate time to respond, said the reply.