Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Defendants’ factual motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on Plaintiff’s failure to establish Article III standing. The court relied on uncontroverted evidence that Plaintiff did not view videos, enter search terms, or access pages associated with specific video content on Defendants’ website. The dismissal was with leave to amend, and the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied as moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants' factual challenge established that plaintiff lacked Article III standing because he could not show a concrete injury in fact.
- Whether the court should resolve the Rule 12(b)(6) motion after dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Holdings
- When a defendant presents evidence challenging a plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations, the plaintiff must respond with competent evidence establishing Article III standing and may not rely solely on the complaint's allegations. Because plaintiff submitted no evidence contradicting defendants' records showing that he did not view videos, enter search terms, or visit pages associated with specific content, he failed to establish a concrete injury in fact and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
- The Rule 12(b)(6) motion was denied as moot because the court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“Article III standing requires that a plaintiff show that he has (1) “suffered an injury in fact” that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent” (2) “that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant,” and (3) “that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”” (Opinion at 3)
“Because Plaintiff has not presented any evidence challenging Defendant’s evidence, the issue whether Plaintiff suffered a concrete injury is not disputed.” (Opinion at 7)
“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” (Opinion at 9)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that he used defendants' GazeboTV website and that tracking tools disclosed his search terms, video-viewing information, and Facebook identifier to third parties, including Meta, without consent. He alleged that he received targeted advertisements after visiting the website and would not have used it had he known of the disclosures. Defendants submitted platform records and declarations showing that plaintiff created and logged into an account on December 28, 2024, but did not view videos, enter search terms, or visit pages associated with specific films, series, or other video content. Plaintiff submitted no evidence contradicting those records.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the complaint on March 26, 2025. Defendants submitted a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, supported by declarations and platform records, asserting that plaintiff had not viewed videos, entered search terms, or visited pages associated with specific video content. Plaintiff submitted no competing evidence. The court dismissed for lack of Article III standing with leave to amend and denied the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as moot; plaintiff was later granted leave to file an amended complaint correcting scrivener's errors, but the court evaluated the motion against the original complaint because the substance remained unchanged.
Remand instructions
No remand. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend and ordered to file an amended complaint on or before November 21, 2025. The November 7, 2025 hearing was vacated.