Palm Beach Golf Center-Boca, Inc. v. John G. Sarris, D.D.S., P.A.
781 F.3d 1245
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Palm Beach Golf received an unsolicited one-page fax advertising by B2B on December 13, 2005.
- B2B transmitted 7,085 faxes, including to Palm Beach Golf, after payment from Sarris, D.D.S.; no Palm Beach Golf employee recalls seeing the fax.
- District Court granted summary judgment for Sarris, holding no direct TCPA liability and Palm Beach Golf lacked standing, and dismissed the Florida conversion claim.
- Court applied DISH Network to limit TCPA liability to the actual transmitter and/or require vicarious liability, and rejected pleading theories.
- Eleventh Circuit sua sponte vacates, reverses, and remands, holding direct liability possible under TCPA when fax is sent on advertiser’s behalf and Palm Beach Golf has standing.
- Court determines Palm Beach Golf did have Article III standing due to occupation of its fax machine for one minute during transmission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Article III for TCPA claim | Palm Beach Golf has concrete injury from occupation of its fax line. | Standing requires proof of receipt or monetary injury; no concrete injury shown. | Palm Beach Golf has standing; injury from fax transmission suffices. |
| Direct liability under TCPA for sending a fax on advertiser's behalf | Sender is the entity on whose behalf the fax is sent; direct liability available. | DIS H Network limits liability to the actual transmitter; vicarious liability required. | Sender may be directly liable; DISH Network does not bar direct liability for junk fax advertisements. |
| Scope of vicarious liability under TCPA after FCC interpretation | Need not prove vicarious liability if the advertiser is the sender. | Agency principles govern vicarious liability; the record does not support it here. | Not necessary to decide vicarious liability; jury may determine whether fax was sent on behalf of defendant. |
| Pleading standard for Florida conversion claim in federal court | Rule 8(a)(2) suffices; Florida heightened pleading not applicable in federal court. | Florida heightened pleading requirements apply to state-law claims. | Federal Rule 8(a)(2) applies; Palm Beach Golf satisfied pleading requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires concrete injury)
- Mead Corp. v. United States, 533 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2001) (Chevron deference and agency interpretations of statutes)
- Holtzman v. Turza, 728 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2013) (record supports recipient-by-recipient data for TCPA damages)
- A Fast Sign Co. v. American Home Servs., Inc., 291 Ga. 844 (Ga. 2012) (no requirement to prove receipt for TCPA damages)
- City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. David Randall Assocs., Inc., 296 F.R.D. 299 (D.N.J. 2013) (TCPA standing can be satisfied by transmission evidence)
- Warshall v. Price, 629 So.2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (conversion requires dominion over property even if value is de minimis)