Arcell et al v. Google LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARY KATHERINE ARCELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 22-cv-02499-RFL
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 242, 251
Federal courts have an independent obligation to address a potential lack of Article III
standing. At summary judgment, a plaintiff must “set forth by affidavit or other admissible
evidence ‘specific facts’ as delineated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) as to the
existence of such standing.” Gerlinger v. Amazon.com Inc., Borders Grp., Inc., 526 F.3d 1253,
1256 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Defendants contend that “Plaintiffs’ assertion of injury
. . . rests on sheer speculation and also lacks the requisite causal connection with the alleged
violation.” (Dkt. No. 254 at 19.)1 This argument implies that Plaintiffs may not have Article III
standing, because they may not have suffered an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to
Defendants’ actions. The parties have presumably already submitted all relevant evidence on
this question when briefing antitrust standing, as antitrust standing is a “more demanding
standard” than Article III standing. See Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1507 (9th Cir. 1996).
However, the Court is raising this issue sua sponte in the event that Plaintiffs have argument or
evidence to present that goes only to the issue of Article III standing.
1 All citations to page numbers in filings on the docket refer to ECF pagination.
Case 3:22-cv-02499-RFL Document 256 Filed 07/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by filing a written response of no longer than five pages
alongside any supplemental evidence by July 15, 2026. Defendants may file a written response
of no longer than five pages alongside any responsive evidence by July 20, 2026. If Defendants
submit supplemental responsive evidence, Plaintiffs may submit a further reply of no longer than
five pages by July 23, 2026. If Defendants do not submit supplemental evidence, there shall be
no further filings by either party after Defendants’ July 20 response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 6, 2026
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
Case 3:22-cv-02499-RFL Document 256 Filed 07/06/26 Page 2 of 2