Bate
Bate v. Securly, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Sheri BATE, et al., Case No.: 23-cv-1304-AGS-DEB
Plaintiffs,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND
v. DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF 15) AS MOOT SECURLY, INC., Defendant. “[E]very federal court has a continuing obligation to ensure that it possesses subject-matter jurisdiction.” United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1047 (9th Cir. 2003). This Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction and “must dismiss the action.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). BACKGROUND In their amended complaint, plaintiffs sue defendant Securly, Inc., for various state privacy-law violations: (1) illegal wiretapping, Cal. Penal Code § 631; (2) unlawful use of an electronic tracking device, id. § 637.7; and (3) violations of California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, id. § 502. (See generally ECF 13.) Plaintiffs assert that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class …