41 F.4th 1354
11th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Drazen, Bennett, and Herrick) sued GoDaddy under the TCPA claiming unlawful automated calls/texts; consolidated actions produced a nationwide settlement class.
- Settlement created a $35 million common fund; class members could claim $35 cash or a $150 GoDaddy-only voucher; class counsel sought up to 30% in fees.
- District Court preliminarily certified the class for settlement after removing Herrick as a named representative; the class still included many individuals who received only a single text (~91,000 of ~1.26 million).
- Objector Pinto argued the vouchers were CAFA "coupons," triggering different fee rules and heightened scrutiny; District Court ultimately reduced fees to 20% ($7M) and denied the $5,000 incentive awards in light of Johnson.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit vacated the approval of certification and settlement and remanded for redefinition of the class because the class definition included members who lack Article III standing (notably single-text recipients), requiring reconsideration under TransUnion and Gaos.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether class certification/settlement valid given Article III standing of absent class members | Class may be certified for settlement despite some absent members lacking standing in Eleventh Circuit; only named plaintiffs need standing (rely on Cordoba) | Nationwide settlement can include members who might have standing in other circuits; settlement finalization is proper | Vacated and remanded: class definition must be limited to members who have Article III standing (TransUnion and Gaos require standing at settlement stage) |
| Whether vouchers are CAFA "coupons" requiring fee calculation based on redeemed value | Objector (Pinto) argued vouchers are coupons, so fees attributable to coupons must be based on redemption value under CAFA | Plaintiffs/GoDaddy argued vouchers are not CAFA coupons and common-fund method is appropriate | District Court found not a coupon settlement, but Eleventh Circuit vacated final approval on standing grounds, so CAFA issue must be revisited after class is redefined |
| Whether attorneys’ fees award (timing and amount) was proper | Pinto argued fees were awarded prematurely and should reflect coupon redemption values; objected to fee calculation and timing | Class counsel sought percentage of the $35M common fund (initially 30% then reduced by Court) | Fee award not sustained here: approval vacated along with settlement; fees to be reassessed after class redefinition and any CAFA determination |
| Whether incentive awards to named plaintiffs were permissible | Plaintiffs sought $5,000 each as service awards | District Court initially approved then disapproved post-Johnson | District Court disapproved $5,000 awards per Johnson; that ruling stood but overall settlement approval vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019) (Article III standing applies to court approval of class settlements; vacated cy pres settlement for lack of standing analysis)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (every class member must have Article III standing to recover individual damages; courts must assess concreteness using history and Congress)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (statutory violation alone does not automatically satisfy Article III concreteness requirement)
- Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2019) (receipt of a single unwanted text message is not a sufficiently concrete injury for Article III standing in this Circuit)
- Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 942 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2019) (discusses interplay of named-plaintiff standing and certification-stage analysis for absent class members)
- Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., 948 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2020) (held receipt of more than one unwanted telemarketing call conferred standing under the TCPA)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014) (addressed nationwide class standing analysis but did not permit inclusion of members lacking Article III standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (articulated the familiar Article III standing elements)
- Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020) (addressed and limited incentive awards to named plaintiffs)