Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_19-cv-00563/USCOURTS-alsd-1_19-cv-00563-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227(b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SUSAN DRAZEN, on behalf of herself and )

others similarly situated )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION: 1:19-00563-KD-B

 )

GODADDY.COM, LLC, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court sua sponte on a review of the record.

The court has an independent duty to examine its own jurisdiction. Alabama Power Co. v. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy, 307 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2002). See e.g., Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 

1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004) (“federal courts ‘are obligated to inquire into subject-matter 

jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.’”) (quoting Galindo-Del Valle v. Attorney 

General, 213 F. 3d 594, 599 (11th Cir. 2000)). Additionally, “any analysis of class certification 

must begin with the issue of standing.” Griffin v. Dugger, 823 F.2d 1476, 1482 (11th Cir. 1987).

“Article III vests the judicial power in the federal courts and extends that power to ‘Cases’ 

and ‘Controversies.’ U.S. Const. art. III, §§ 1-2. One tool for determining that the matters before 

[courts] are truly cases and controversies, as understood by Article III, is the doctrine of standing.”

See Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162, 1172 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 

504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). “Standing ...developed in our case law to ensure that federal courts do 

not exceed their authority as it has been traditionally understood.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 

S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). This “irreducible constitutional minimum” consists of three elements: 1) 

the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact; 2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct 

Case 1:19-cv-00563-KD-B Document 30 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
2

of the defendant; and 3) that is likely to be redressed by favorable judicial decision. Lujan, 504 

U.S. at 559-560. These are “not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of 

each plaintiff’s case.” Id. at 561. Moreover, “Congress cannot erase Article III’s standing 

requirements by statutorily granting the right to sue, [as is the case with the TCPA,] to a plaintiff 

who would not otherwise have standing.” Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1547-48 (citing Raines v. Byrd,

521 U.S. 811, 820, n.3 (1997)). “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 

establishing these elements.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561.

To satisfy the first constitutional element of standing – injury in fact – “a plaintiff must 

show that he or she suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is ‘concrete and 

particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjecture or hypothetical.’” Id. at 560. Notably, the 

Eleventh Circuit recently held in Salcedo v. Hanna that an individual’s receipt of a single text 

message was “not a basis for invoking the jurisdiction of the federal courts” because the plaintiff’s 

allegations did “not state a concrete harm that meets the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.” 

936 F.3d at 1172.

In Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement and 

preliminary approval of class certification, Plaintiff proposes three named plaintiffs as class 

representatives: Susan Drazen (Drazen), Jason Bennett (Bennett), and John Herrick (Herrick).

(Doc. 20 at 7). The Court’s review of these motions indicates a mix of unsolicited text messages 

and phone calls from GoDaddy to these individuals for purposes of TCPA class certification and 

settlement. Namely, Drazen alleges she received unsolicited text messages and phone calls from 

GoDaddy (Doc. 1 at 2; Doc. 27 at 1). Bennett alleges he received unsolicited calls from GoDaddy 

(Doc. 20 at 9). Herrick alleges “he received text message advertising on his cellular telephone from 

GoDaddy...” (Doc. 20 at 9, 11). It is unclear from the record how many text messages Herrick 

Case 1:19-cv-00563-KD-B Document 30 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
3

received. Moreover, the proposed class definition extends to “[a]ll persons within the United States 

who received a call or text message to his or her cellular phone from Defendant...” (Doc. 20 at 

13). This definition purportedly includes individuals who received a single text message from 

GoDaddy during the relevant period.

As such, it is ORDERED that the parties shall file,

1 on or before March 6, 2020, briefs 

explaining how this case is distinguishable from Salcedo v. Hanna, the basis for standing and 

whether the proposed class includes text message only recipients. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 21st day of February 2020.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 The Court understands that this may impact the parties amended settlement class definition. 

Case 1:19-cv-00563-KD-B Document 30 Filed 02/21/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>