TikTok Asks Court to Deny Remand of N.Y. Couple's Case to State Court
Defendants TikTok and ByteDance petitioned the court to deny plaintiffs Dean and Michelle Nasca's motion to remand to state court their case vs. the social media company, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Long Island Railroad and Town of Islip, New York,…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
in a Friday letter (2:24-cv-02061) from counsel Kristen Fournier of King & Spaulding to U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis for Eastern New York in Brooklyn. The Nascas sued TikTok in U.S. District Court for Northern California in March 2023 after their son, Chase, died by suicide after TikTok allegedly directed him to adult accounts with “highly depressive, violent, self-harm and suicide themed content." The Nascas refiled the action in New York state court, joining for the first time the MTA defendants. TikTok removed the case from New York State Supreme Court in Suffolk County to U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Central Islip April 13, 2023, on the basis that the MTA defendants were improperly joined. In his order remanding the case, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis for Eastern New York said TikTok could seek state court severance and then seek removal of the case again for transfer to a Social Media MDL naming the major social media companies in the Northern District of California. The Nascas filed an opposition this month to conditional transfer order 30 that would have transferred the case to In Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Liability Litigation (see 2404110050). If the court grants the Nascas’ motion for remand to state court, the defendants request oral argument that addresses the "complex procedural history and posture of this case," plus the novel arguments raised in the Nascas’ reply related to an administrative change to the notice of removal, the letter said. Also to be addressed is the “unsupported representation that the New York Supreme Court was 'unwittingly’ divested of jurisdiction” at the time it issued its order for show cause, the letter said.