The Middle District of Florida recently denied class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case where there was no “class-wide” proof as to whether proposed class members consented to automated calls to their cellular telephones.
Shamblin v. Obama for Am.
, No 13-2428, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54849 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2015). In doing so, the court confirmed that the burden of proving critical issues are susceptible to class-wide proof falls on class-action plaintiffs regardless of whether defendants bear the ultimate burden of proving or disproving certain issues at trial (in this case consent).
The TCPA makes it illegal to call any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service using an automatic-telephone-dialing system or an artificial or pre-recorded voice, unless the consumer expressly consents to same.
, plaintiff filed a putative class action against Obama for America after receiving two unsolicited auto-dialed calls to her cellular telephone. In finding that the commonality, predominance and superiority requirements for class certification were not satisfied, the court reasoned that Plaintiff was “not entitled to a presumption that all class members failed to consent” despite a lack of documentary evidence of consent and “[d]efendants have a constitutional right to a jury determination as to whether any person consented to receiving calls to their cellular telephone.” As there was no class-wide proof available to decide consent, individualized inquiries into consent (including where, how, and when) would predominate trial, precluding class certification.
The Shamblin decision indicates that class treatment may not be the appropriate mechanism for adjudicating TCPA disputes where individual determinations with respect to consent exist. For more information on the Shamblin decision or the TCPA generally, contact Katherine Olson at 312-334-3444 or firstname.lastname@example.org.