UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23320-JEM

CHRISTIANAH ADARAMAJA and 

DIANNA CRAVENER, individually and 

on behalf of all other similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SEDUCTION COSMETIC CENTER 

CORP,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY

Defendant SEDUCTION COSMETIC CENTER CORP (hereinafter “Defendant”) hereby 

files its Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs CHRISTIANAH ADARAMAJA and DIANNA 

CRAVENER’s (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Stay (the “Motion”) 

[D.E. 39], which states that this case should be stayed pending an opinion in Drazen v. Pinto, No. 

21-10199 (11th Cir.). In opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion, Defendant states as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises from text messages allegedly sent to Plaintiffs by Defendant. On April 19, 

2023, the Parties filed their Joint Status Report [D.E. 33] which stipulated to certain deadlines, 

setting April 28, 2023, as the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their First Consolidated Class Action 

Complaint (the “Complaint”) with Defendant’s response being due on or before May 18, 2023.

On April 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint [D.E. 34]. On May 10, 2023, the Court entered 

and Order requiring Defendant to respond to the Complaint by May 18, 2023 [D.E. 37].

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 1 of 9
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23320-JEM

2

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2294 FAX 

On May 18, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint [D.E. 38]

and asserted that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the claims asserted in the operative Complaint, 

and, therefore, Defendant is entitled to dismissal. In response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiffs filed their Motion [D.E. 39] and have now asserted that this case should be stayed based 

on another unrelated case. Within Plaintiffs’ Motion, Plaintiffs initiate their argument via asserting 

that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is a “questionable tactic” inferring that Defendant removed 

the instant matter from State Court to Federal Court just to challenge jurisdiction thereafter. 

Although this honorable Court need not an explanation as to how Plaintiffs’ claim is a 

misrepresentation to the Court as to what has occurred on the record to date, for sake of clarifying 

the record, Defendants have not engaged in such a “questionable tactic”. Rather, Defendant 

concedes there is a Federal Question that bestows this Court with subject matter jurisdiction based 

on the claims asserted by Plaintiff (hence the Removal). Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 38] 

moves this Court to dismiss the instant action because the Plaintiffs have no standing based on the 

allegations asserted as they have not and cannot establish they have incurred an injury-in-fact to 

establish Article III standing. Defendant’s dispositive arguments would be asserted whether the 

matter was in State or Federal Court1. Moreover, it is Defendant’s position that the Stay sought by 

Plaintiffs in the instant proceedings is, itself, a “questionable tactic” as this Court has already 

stayed this matter pending the outcome of global mediation, which Plaintiffs’ unilaterally 

cancelled, and Plaintiffs, never raised, at any time, grounds to seek a stay pursuant to Drazen v. 

1 See Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed on 5/3/23 in the matter of Aguilar v. Seduction Cosmetic Center Corp. 

Case No: 2023-001542-CA-01 in Miami Dade County, in which Defendant moved for a dismissal/stay as Aguilar’s 

class action was filed after the instant lawsuit, raising identical claims and sought alternative relief to dismiss the 

lawsuit based on lack of standing relying on Saleh v. Miami Gardens Square One, Inc., 353 So.3d 1253 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2023).

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 2 of 9
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23320-JEM

3

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2294 FAX 

Pinto, No. 21-10199 (11th Cir.) which has been pending long before the parties sought the initial 

stay and long before Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss.

II. ARGUMENT

Within the present Motion, Plaintiffs argue that this case should be stayed pending an 

opinion in Drazen v. Pinto, No. 21-10199 (11th Cir.). Recently, in Drazen v. Pinto, 41 F.4th 1354 

(11th Cir. 2022), the Eleventh Circuit held that it would certify a class for settlement only if all 

class members — named and unnamed — could establish Article III standing in the Eleventh 

Circuit. Id. at 1362. In doing so, the court built on Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins2and TransUnion LLC v. 

Ramirez3, which together require absent class members to have standing before receiving posttrial damages.4 Extending this trend, the Eleventh Circuit was the first circuit to hold that absent 

class members need standing to participate in settlement. See Drazen, 41 F.4th at 1362–63.

Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks to convince this Court to refuse to follow current law applicable to the 

circumstances and should be denied.

i. Drazen v. Pinto

In August 2019, Susan Drazen filed a class action against GoDaddy in the Southern District 

of Alabama, alleging the company had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act5(TCPA) 

by calling or texting class members using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS).6 Susan 

Drazen’s case was consolidated with two similar cases.7In Drazen, the three named plaintiffs 

2 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016).

3 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021).

4 See Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549; TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. at 2204–05.

5 27 U.S.C. § 227.

6 Complaint at 2 n. 8, 1-3, Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, No. 19-00563 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 23, 2020), 2019 WL 

8014756; Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, No. 19-00563, 2020 WL 2494624, at *3, *6 (S.D. Ala. May 14, 2020)

7 See Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, No. 19-00563, 2020 WL 8254868, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 23, 2020); Bennett v. 

GoDaddy.com LLC, No. CV-16-03908-PHX, 2019 WL 1552911 (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 2019); Herrick v. GoDaddy.com 

LLC, 312 F. Supp. 3d 792 (D. Ariz. 2018).

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 3 of 9
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23320-JEM

4

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2294 FAX 

defined the class as: “All persons within the United States who received a call or text message to 

his or her cellular telephone from Defendant . . .” 41 F.4th at 1356. The plaintiffs negotiated with 

GoDaddy and agreed to a proposed $35 million class settlement with two compensation options 

for each class member: $35 in cash or a $150 GoDaddy voucher and the Parties submitted this 

settlement to district court for approval. Id.8 The Court counseled the parties to narrow the class 

definition, and the parties complied, by specifying that class members must have received texts or 

calls from an ATDS.9

During the proceedings in Drazen, the Eleventh Circuit decided Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 

F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2019), which held that receiving a single text was not a concrete injury and 

did not establish standing. Id. at 1165. Combining Salcedo with Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 942 

F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2019) which held that named plaintiffs must establish standing10, the Drazen 

court ordered one of the named plaintiffs to be removed because he had received only one text.

Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, No. 19-00563, 2020 WL 2494624, at *5 (S.D. Ala. May 14, 2020).

The court then approved the revised class definition and acknowledged that about seven percent 

of (or ninety-one thousand) of absent class members had received only a single text, but reasoned 

that other circuits considered even one text message enough to establish standing. Id. at *6 (citing 

Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC, 847 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir. 2017); Melito v. Experian 

Mktg. Sols., Inc., 923 F.3d 85, 92–95 (2d Cir. 2019)). 

Quoting from the Fifth Circuit’s decision in In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790 (5th 

Cir. 2014), the Drazen court concluded that GoDaddy was “entitled” to settle these related but (in 

8

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) (requiring court approval of a binding class action settlement).

9 Drazen, 2020 WL 8254868, at *2.

10 Id. at 1273

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 4 of 9
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23320-JEM

5

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2294 FAX 

the Eleventh Circuit) meritless claims because Drazen was a nationwide settlement.11 The court

certified the class and preliminarily approved the settlement. Drazen, 41 F.4th at 1357. Class 

counsel moved for thirty percent of the settlement as attorneys’ fees, and the court granted twentyfive percent fees.12 Class member Juan Pinto objected that the court awarded fees too early, and 

that the settlement failed to calculate fees in accordance with coupon requirements in the Class 

Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Drazen, 41 F.4th at 1357–58 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1712(e)).

The Drazen court approved the settlement, reducing attorneys’ fees to twenty percent of the 

common fund and concluding that CAFA coupon requirements did not apply.13 And, thereafter, 

Pinto timely appealed.14

The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded holding that the class did not have standing 

and remanded to allow revision of the class definition. Drazen, 41 F.4th at 1359, 1362–63. The 

Eleventh Circuit began by quoting Spokeo, which held that a plaintiff does not have standing 

simply because “a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to 

sue to vindicate that right.” Id. at 1359 (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 

(2016)). Citing Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019), the Eleventh Circuit noted the distinction 

between non-class litigation and class actions — because Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure requires a court to approve a class action settlement, all named plaintiffs must have 

standing. Drazen, 41 F.4th at 1359–60.

The court then reached another “lodestar principle that guide[d] [its] analysis,” which 

consisted of two takeaways from TransUnion: (1) a plaintiff “must demonstrate that history and 

11 Drazen, 2020 WL 2494624, at *6 (quoting In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d at 807).

12 Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, No. 19-00563, 2020 WL 4606979, at *3 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 11, 2020).

13 Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, No. 19-00563, 2020 WL 8254868, at *1, *3–4, *13 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 23, 2020).

14 Drazen, 41 F.4th at 1358.

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 5 of 9
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23320-JEM

6

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2294 FAX 

the judgment of Congress support a conclusion that there is Article III standing,”15 and (2) “[e]very 

class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages.”16 The 

Eleventh Circuit concluded that the logic of TransUnion — a class action that went to trial —

should also apply to Drazen — a settlement-only class action. Drazen, 41 F.4th at 

1360 (quoting TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. at 2208). To support this conclusion, the Eleventh Circuit 

highlighted that the district court had breezed over Cordoba’s holding that absent class members 

must have standing to receive relief. Id. at 1361 (quoting Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 942 F.3d 

1259, 1274 (11th Cir. 2019)). The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the absent class members who 

had received a single text had not established a concrete injury required for standing in the Eleventh 

Circuit and remanded for a new class definition. Id. at 1362-63.

ii. Regardless of the Relevance or Outcome of the En Banc Hearing in Drazen, 

the Court Lacks Jurisdiction Under Current Binding Eleventh Circuit 

Precedent.

On March 13, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the panel decision in Drazen and ordered 

the appeal to be reheard en banc. Drazen v. Godaddy.com, LLC, No. 21-10199, 2023 WL 2468505 

(11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2023). This may indicate a full reexamination of the Salcedo decision by the 

full Court of Appeals, or it may address only whether Salcedo properly should be extended from 

the “single text” context to the “single call” circumstances of Drazen. 

Only after Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 38] which raised a meritorious 

challenge to Plaintiffs’ standing, did Plaintiffs choose to file their two-page Motion to Stay, and 

Plaintiffs have only now asserted that this case should not proceed based on Drazen. Although 

Plaintiffs have referred to “questionable tactics” on the part of Defendant, it is certainly 

15 Drazen, 41 F.4th at at 1360 (citing TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2204–05 (2021)).

16 Id. (quoting TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. at 2208).

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 6 of 9
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23320-JEM

7

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2294 FAX 

questionable that Plaintiffs did not mention Drazen or the purported necessity to stay this Case 

when the Parties conferred regarding their Joint Status Report [D.E. 33] which provided a deadline 

for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs’ operative complaint. It is obvious based on Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Stay that—if Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay is correct, which Defendant denies—Plaintiffs

have been acting disingenuously by causing Defendant to incur costs to defend this action despite 

Plaintiffs’ awareness of Drazen, and by attempting to obtain information from Defendant 

regarding Plaintiffs’ proposed class to negotiate a settlement on behalf of Plaintiffs’ proposed class 

despite the ongoing proceedings in Drazen, which Plaintiffs now claim prevent this case from 

being ripe for adjudication. If Plaintiffs were aware of Drazen, Plaintiffs should not have taken the 

above-mentioned actions prior to moving this Court to stay this case pending Drazen.

Regardless of the relevance or outcome of the en banc hearing in Drazen, the Court lacks

jurisdiction under current binding Eleventh Circuit precedent. An “irreducible constitutional 

minimum,” Article III standing ensures that each plaintiff is “a proper party to invoke judicial 

resolution of [a] dispute and the exercise of the court's remedial powers.” See Lujan v. Defs. of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992); see also Ladies Mem. Assoc., Inc. v. City of Pensacola, 

Fla., 34 F.4th 988, 994 (11th Cir. 2022). Standing requires a plaintiff to allege (1) an “injury in 

fact,” (2) that the injury is “fairly traceable” to the defendant's actions, and (3) that the injury would 

“likely” be “redressed by a favorable decision.” See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560–61. Because the 

“standing doctrine stems directly from Article III's ‘case or controversy’ requirement,” it 

“implicates [a federal court's] subject matter jurisdiction.” Mack v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 994 F.3d 

1353, 1356 (11th Cir. 2021).

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 7 of 9
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23320-JEM

8

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2294 FAX 

In Salcedo v. Hanna, the Eleventh Circuit determined that a plaintiff who pleads receipt of 

a single text message which caused injuries such as “wast[ing] time,” making his phone 

“unavailable for otherwise legitimate pursuits,” and “invasion of Plaintiff's privacy and [a 

deprivation of his] right to enjoy the full utility of his cellular device” does not meet the threshold 

concreteness requirement for Article III standing set forth in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 

(2016). 936 F. 3d 1162, 1167 (11th Cir. 2019). At present, Salcedo remains the law of the Circuit. 

See Alvarez v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp., 23-20924-CIV, 2023 WL 3043408, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 

2023). And while it is entirely possible that the Drazen panel will ultimately decide 

that Salcedo was wrongfully decided, that is not the lay of the land right now. Id. Accordingly, as 

explained in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss17 Plaintiffs’ operative Complaint, this Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ claims in this case. Id.

III. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay should be denied. 

Dated: May 22, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 22nd day of May 2023, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing has been furnished by electronic filing with the Clerk of the court via CM/ECF, which 

will send notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record.

17 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 38] is hereby fully incorporated and reasserted herein by reference.

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 8 of 9
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23320-JEM

9

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2294 FAX 

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

Counsel for Defendant SEDUCTION COSMETIC 

CENTER CORP

Cole, Scott & Kissane Building

9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400

P.O. Box 569015

Miami, Florida 33256

Telephone (786) 268-6464

Facsimile (305) 373-2294

Primary e-mail: andrew.simon@csklegal.com

Secondary e-mail: nicholas.nashII@csklegal.com

By: s/ Nicholas M. Nash, II

ANDREW G. SIMON

Florida Bar No.: 1002623

NICHOLAS M. NASH, II

Florida Bar No.: 1017063

0432.0493-00/-1

Case 1:22-cv-23320-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 9 of 9