Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc.
900 F.3d 884
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Helping Hand received an unsolicited fax ad on Oct. 31, 2014 advertising an Olive Garden “Lunch n’ Learn” and sued Darden (owner of Olive Garden marks), Mid Wilshire/Social Wellness, and two individuals under the TCPA.
- Social Wellness (Mid Wilshire) organized the marketing; Jones (independent contractor) handled communications with Darden employees (initially Momot, later Ken Bott); Kang was CEO of Mid Wilshire but did not communicate with Darden.
- Conversations between Jones and Darden employees discussed email marketing and a test email campaign using other logos; no written or testimonial evidence showed any discussion or approval of fax advertising.
- Social Wellness created and sent a fax using the Olive Garden logo (obtained from internet sources), without a written agreement, payment, or Darden sign-off; Darden sent cease-and-desist letters and later obtained a default judgment against Social Wellness for trademark infringement.
- District court granted summary judgment to Darden, concluding Helping Hand had not shown Darden authorized or otherwise was the sender of the fax; the court denied Helping Hand’s Rule 56(d) request to lift a discovery stay and to depose two former/other Darden contacts (Momot, Sanchez) because Helping Hand had not shown how those depositions would produce material evidence and had not pursued the unserved/absent co-defendants or default.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Darden can be liable under TCPA solely because its goods/services were advertised in the fax (strict liability under the regulation) | Regulation’s phrase “whose goods or services are advertised” imposes direct liability on the advertised company even absent authorization | Liability requires that the defendant be the ‘‘sender’’—i.e., the fax be sent on the defendant’s behalf; agency principles apply | Court followed Seventh Circuit precedent: no strict liability; must show the defendant sent the fax (express, implied, or apparent authority) |
| Whether Helping Hand produced evidence that Social Wellness acted with authority (express, implied, or apparent) to send faxes on Darden’s behalf | Faxes benefited Olive Garden and arose from a strategic alliance; discovery might reveal authorization | Communications show only email marketing discussions; Jones admitted no fax approval; no written authorization | No evidence of any authorization for fax marketing; summary judgment for Darden affirmed |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying additional discovery and Rule 56(d) relief to depose Momot and Sanchez | Depositions of Momot and Sanchez could reveal authorization or contradict Jones’s testimony | Court limited discovery to avoid piecemeal litigation because Helping Hand had not pursued remaining defendants (appearances/default) and had deposed principal witnesses (Bott, Jones, Kang) | No abuse of discretion: requests were speculative or properly conditioned on Helping Hand’s plan to proceed against absent defendants |
| Whether district court erred by relying on undisputed facts (including some not properly disputed) in granting summary judgment | Argued discovery restrictions prevented showing genuine dispute | Darden argued sufficient evidence (depositions) showed no authorization and proper case management supported discovery limits | Court’s use of the record and decision to manage discovery were proper; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridgeview Health Care Ctr., Ltd. v. Clark, 816 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2016) (rejecting strict-liability reading of regulation; applying agency principles to determine who is a “sender”)
- Paldo Sign & Display Co. v. Wagener Equities, Inc., 825 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2016) (reaffirming that liability requires acting on another’s behalf)
- Palm Beach Golf Ctr.–Boca, Inc. v. John G. Sarris, D.D.S., P.A., 781 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding liability requires the fax be sent “on its behalf,” consistent with agency analysis)
- Siding & Insulation Co. v. Alco Vending, Inc., 822 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 2016) (discussing regulation’s language; factual posture limited the court’s reading)
- Health One Med. Ctr., Eastpointe P.L.L.C. v. Mohawk, Inc., 889 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2018) (holding defendants cannot be liable under TCPA absent conduct amounting to sending or dispatching the fax)