Bianca Johnston v. Capital One Financial Corp.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

Docket / citation: CV 26-00457-MWF(PVCx) · Filed: 2026-05-07

Summary

The district court vacated a scheduled hearing and ordered Defendant to show cause why Plaintiff has Article III standing for a California Penal Code §631(a) claim but not for an alternative §638.51 claim, given both claims rest on the same alleged website tracking data (including a TikTok pixel). Deadlines for the parties’ additional briefing were set. The court did not decide the Motion to Dismiss on the merits and will address it after the jurisdictional issue is resolved.

Litigation Status

Status, direction, and weight describe how tracked public sources characterize this matter as of our last review — they are informational classifications, not legal assessments.

Procedural Posture

Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 13). Plaintiff filed an Opposition (Docket No. 16) and Defendant filed a Reply (Docket No. 18). After reviewing briefing, the Court vacated the scheduled hearing and issued an order to show cause regarding Article III standing, directing Defendant to respond by May 22, 2026 and permitting an optional Reply by June 5, 2026.

Reported Holding

The Court concluded a preliminary jurisdictional question must be resolved before deciding most arguments in Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: it is unclear how Plaintiff could have Article III standing for her claim under Penal Code §631(a) but not for her alternative claim under Penal Code §638.51 when the alleged injuries arise from the same allegedly-collected tracking data. The Court vacated the May 11, 2026 hearing and ordered Defendant to show cause why Plaintiff has Article III standing for §631(a) but not §638.51, with a Response due May 22, 2026 and an optional Reply due June 5, 2026.

What the Court Decided

The Court vacated the scheduled May 11, 2026 hearing and ordered Defendant to show cause regarding Article III standing as to Plaintiff's §631(a) claim but not her §638.51 claim; set deadlines for briefing; and took the Motion to Dismiss under submission pending resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The Court did not resolve the merits of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or rule on whether either statutory claim should be dismissed on the merits; it did not make a final determination on standing.

Significance

Neutral / mixed significance. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.

What This Page Does and Does Not Say

This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.

Technologies at Issue

• TikTok pixel
• website tracking tools

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: TikTok.

Statutes Invoked

• California Penal Code §631(a); California Penal Code §638.51

Claims Asserted

Claims identified in tracked public sources; pleadings may include additional or amended claims.

• California Penal Code §631(a)
• California Penal Code §638.51 (pen-register claim)

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.

Because this matter is pending, anything reported here is procedural — allegations and interim rulings, not final determinations.

Detection of a similar technology on a website is an informational risk indicator, not a legal conclusion, and nothing in this section is legal advice.

Related Intelligence

Sources

• Civil Minutes — Order to Show Cause re: Jurisdiction (Bianca Johnston v. Capital One) — MINUTE ORDER (in chambers) — U.S. District Court, Central District of California (hosted on Justia) · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-05-07

About This Page

Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.

How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.

Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.

Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.