Sebastian Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC
942 F.3d 1259
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff Sebastian Cordoba sued DIRECTV and its telemarketer Telecel under the TCPA, alleging repeated telemarketing calls despite requests to stop; he sought to represent two classes (the one at issue: all persons who received >1 Telecel telemarketing call on DIRECTV’s behalf while Telecel failed to maintain an internal do‑not‑call (DNC) list).
- Telecel admitted it did not maintain an internal DNC list; discovery showed Telecel placed tens of thousands of calls on DIRECTV’s behalf; only a small subset of numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry.
- The district court certified both classes under Rule 23(b)(3); DIRECTV petitioned for interlocutory review under Rule 23(f) on whether absent class members who never asked to be placed on an internal DNC list have Article III standing.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that (1) receiving multiple unsolicited telemarketing calls is a concrete injury under Spokeo/Lujan, and the named plaintiff (who repeatedly asked not to be called) has standing, but (2) absent class members who never requested no‑calls do not have standing because their injuries are not fairly traceable to the failure to maintain an internal DNC list.
- Because many putative class members may lack standing, the court concluded the district court abused its discretion by certifying an overbroad class without analyzing whether individualized standing inquiries would predominate under Rule 23(b)(3); it vacated certification and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recipients who never asked to be placed on a caller’s internal DNC list have Article III standing to sue for the caller’s failure to maintain such a list | Cordoba: all recipients of multiple unlawful calls are injured by the telemarketing campaign and thus have standing | DIRECTV: absent members who never asked not to be called were not harmed by the failure to maintain an internal list; their injuries aren’t traceable to that violation | Held: No — recipients who never requested no‑calls lack standing because their injuries are not fairly traceable to the failure to maintain an internal DNC list |
| Whether receipt of multiple unsolicited telemarketing calls is a "concrete" injury under Spokeo/Lujan | Cordoba: unwanted calls occupy time and attention and Congress identified this harm in the TCPA | DIRECTV: statutory violation alone may be a bare procedural harm under Spokeo | Held: Yes — receipt of more than one unwanted telemarketing call is a concrete, Article III cognizable injury |
| Whether the presence of uninjured absent class members affects Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and certification | Cordoba: only the named plaintiff must have standing; class certification can proceed | DIRECTV: the predominance inquiry must account for individualized standing issues, which defeat predominance here | Held: The district court must evaluate whether individualized standing inquiries (who actually requested no‑calls) will predominate; failure to do so was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in certifying the internal DNC class without addressing individualized standing/traceability issues | Cordoba: class was manageable; individualized issues can be addressed later | DIRECTV: certification was overbroad given probable many uninjured members and lack of method to identify injured members | Held: Abuse of discretion — vacated class certification and remanded for Rule 23(b)(3) predominance analysis that includes standing/traceability concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (congressional creation of a statutory right does not automatically satisfy Article III; standing requires a concrete injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three-part Article III standing test: injury‑in‑fact, traceability, redressability)
- Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976) (injury must be fairly traceable to defendant, not to independent third‑party action)
- Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (2012) (legislative findings about harms from telemarketing and overview of TCPA prohibitions)
- Florence Endocrine Clinic, PLLC v. Arriva Medical, LLC, 858 F.3d 1362 (11th Cir. 2017) (receipt of unsolicited fax is a concrete injury under the TCPA)
- Nicklaw v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 839 F.3d 998 (11th Cir. 2016) (statutory violations that cause no concrete harm may fail Article III standing)
- Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2019) (receipt of a single text message differs from a phone call; text did not constitute concrete injury there)
- Swann v. Secretary, 668 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2012) (standing lacking where plaintiff’s own choices, not the challenged rule, caused the injury)
- Kohen v. Pacific Investment Mgmt. Co. LLC, 571 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2009) (class should not be certified if it evidently includes many uninjured members; district court must consider overbreadth)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (Rule 23 predominance requires pragmatic assessment; presence of uninjured members may be relevant to manageability and predominance)