GEORGE
v.
EBAY INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing because the receipt of a single unsolicited text message does not constitute a concrete injury, thus the case must be remanded.
Plaintiff filed a class action under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act alleging receipt of an automated marketing text message without consent. D…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concrete Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Remand (Dkt. 16). Although the motion is unopposed, this Court does not have the discretion to remand a properly removed action without independent review.1 After consideration of the entire file, the Court remands for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed this class action pursuant to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, section 501.059 of the Florida Statutes (“FTSA”). Dkt. 1-4. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant, a consumer goods retailer, sent him and other putative class members an automated, marketing text message without prior express written
Dkt. 13. Plaintiff seeks to remand based on the lack of Article III standing. As in Iuliano v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 8:22-cv-2299-SDM-JSS, 2022 WL 18456982
(M.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2022), Plaintiff filed this class action against Defendant for violations of the FTSA. Because “the receipt of a single, unsolicited text message” does not demonstrate a concrete injury, the complaint does not invoke Article III standing. Id. at *1; see also Fontanez v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., No. 8:22-cv-
2538-KKM-TGW, 2022 WL 17959844 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2022) (remanding class action where no injury in fact shown by receipt of one unsolicited text message). A class action cannot stand in federal court where the class includes
persons who received a single text. See Iuliano, 2022 WL 18456982, at *1 (citing Drazen v. Pinto, 41 F.th 1354, 1362 (11th Cir. 2022)); Fontanez, 2022 WL 17959844, at *2 (citing Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F. 3d 1162, 1165, 1172 (11th Cir. 2019)).
As in Fontanez, the Court is faced with two complaints—the initial removed complaint and the later amended complaint. 2022 WL 17959844, at *2. After examining both, the Court finds Plaintiff lacks Article III standing under either
pleading. Accordingly, the motion to remand (Dkt. 16) is granted. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Judicial Proceedings (Dkt. 15) is denied as moot and without prejudice. The Clerk is directed1) to remand this action to the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, and to transmit a certified copy of this order to the clerk of that court, 2) to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and 3) to close the case. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on February 2, 2023. me,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of record