1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GABRYELLE DANIELS, Case No. 25-cv-05137-JD

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE DISMISSAL AND

9 v. DEFAULT JUDGMENT

10 META PLATFORMS INC., Defendant. 11

12 13 Pro se plaintiff Gabryelle Daniels filed this action for negligence against defendant Meta 14 Platforms, Inc. in connection with its social media platform, Instagram. See Dkt. No. 1. The 15 complaint alleges that Daniels’s minor daughter, D.D., was sexually assaulted by three men she 16 met on Instagram and another social media platform unrelated to Meta. Id. at 5. Daniels requests 17 injunctive relief, and monetary damages for “emotional duress, medical bills[,]” and D.D.’s 18 siblings’ “future therapy and [ ] emotional duress[.]” Id. at 6. 19 Meta asks to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 24. The motion is suitable for decision without oral 20 argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and the hearing set for October 23, 2025, is vacated. 21 Daniels’s request to appear remotely, Dkt. No. 38, is denied as moot. The parties’ familiarity with 22 the record is assumed. 23 The complaint raises a troubling allegation with respect to Daniels’s daughter but cannot 24 go forward in its present form. To start, there is a question of whether the negligence claim is 25 within the statute of limitations. Although the choice of law issue has not been squarely 26 addressed, and the Court does not resolve it here, the limitations period is two years in California, 27 where Meta is located, and also in Texas, where Daniels resides. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1 between November 12, 2021, and February 3, 2023. See Dkt. No. 1 at 3. Daniels filed the 2 complaint on June 9, 2025. Id. at 1. Consequently, the negligence claim is arguably untimely. 3 Daniels will be permitted to file an amended complaint, and should allege facts demonstrating that 4 the claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. 5 There is also a question of whether Daniels is seeking relief on behalf of others, namely 6 her daughter, which she cannot do. Daniels did not indicate that she is an attorney admitted to 7 practice in this District, and so she may proceed on a pro se basis solely on her own behalf and not 8 on behalf of any other person, including her daughter. See Civil L.R. 3-9(a) (“Any party 9 representing him or herself without an attorney must appear personally and may not delegate that 10 duty to any other person who is not a member of the bar of this Court.”); Grizzell v. San Elijo 11 Elementary School, 110 F.4th 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2024) (“[A] parent may not proceed pro se on 12 her children’s behalf.”). If Daniels files an amended complaint, she must make clear that the 13 claims and relief are solely with respect to herself. 14 On the substance of the claim, Daniels did not allege the elements of negligence in a 15 plausible way. As a pro se litigant, Daniels is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Nordin v. Scott, 16 No. 3:21-CV-04717-JD, 2021 WL 4710697, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2021), aff’d, No. 22-15816, 17 2023 WL 4418595 (9th Cir. July 10, 2023) (citing Nguyen Gardner v. Chevron Capital Corp., 18 No. 15-cv-01514-JD, 2015 WL 12976114, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2015)). Even so, for her 19 negligence claim, Daniels must plausibly allege a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and an injury 20 proximately caused by that breach. See Kesner v. Superior Ct., 1 Cal. 5th 1132, 1142 (Cal. 2016) 21 (“A plaintiff in any negligence suit must demonstrate a legal duty to use due care, a breach of such 22 legal duty, and [that] the breach [is] the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” 23 (alterations in original, internal quotations and citations omitted)); Western Invs., Inc. v. Urena, 24 162 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. 2005) (“To prevail on her negligence cause of action, [plaintiff] must 25 establish the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by the 26 breach.” (citation omitted)). She has not plausibly alleged any of these elements, especially duty. 27 Daniels filed documents with additional allegations and responses to the motion to dismiss. 1 Procedure and the District’s Local Rules, and also do not address the issues with the complaint. 2 || Even asa pro se litigant, Daniels is expected to follow all applicable rules. See Johnson v. United 3 || States, No. 13-CV-02405-JD, 2014 WL 2750275, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2014) (citing Civil 4 || L.R. 3-9(a)). Failure to do so will result in a summary termination of the filing for all purposes in 5 the case. 6 Daniels’s motion for default judgment, Dkt. No. 28, is denied. The clerk has not entered a 7 default, and Meta filed a motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 15 (service on July 30, 2025); Dkt. 8 No. 24 (motion to dismiss filed on August 20, 2025); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a). 9 Daniels may file an amended complaint consistent with this order by November 24, 2025. 10 || No new parties or new claims may be added without the Court’s prior consent. Failure to meet the 11 filing deadline or otherwise comply with this order will result in dismissal of the case pursuant to 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: October 17, 2025

5 JAMES(PONATO. nited Ptates District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28