District Court (Fla.) Enjoins “Obama for America” from Violating the TCPA, but Only on a Non-Class Basis

In Shamblin v. Obama for America, 2015 WL 6123731, at *1-2 (M.D.Fla., 2015), Judge Covington declined to grant class-wide injunctive relief under the TCPA since she previously denied class certification in the Action.

Shamblin seeks an injunction barring the remaining Defendants from any future violations of the TCPA, as follows:  “Obama for America and DNC Services Corp., and their respective officers, directors, employees, and agents, are hereby permanently enjoined from violating the TCPA by sending or transmitting auto-dialed or pre-recorded calls to cell phones without prior express consent.”  (Doc. # 234 at 9). Importantly, Shamblin argues that “[w]hatever the proper scope of a statutory injunction, judgment reciting the terms of a Court–Ordered injunction should enter, not a judgment of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (Doc. # 234 at 3).  Thus, the Court is called upon to determine whether Shamblin is entitled to a narrow injunction prohibiting the remaining Defendants from placing certain calls to Shamblin, or to a sweeping injunction barring the remaining Defendants from any and all future conduct that may violate the TCPA. In answering this question, the Court is mindful that “injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiff[ ].” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979). Furthermore, “The law requires that courts closely tailor injunctions to the harm that they address.” Osmose, Inc. v. Viance, LLC, 612 F.3d 1298, 1323 (11th Cir.2010)(quoting ALPO Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F.2d 958, 972 (D.C.Cir.1990)). Upon due consideration, the Court determines that Shamblin is entitled to the narrower injunction offered by Obama for America and DNC Services. As argued by these Defendants: “This Court has already determined that this case is not appropriate for class certification and is to proceed on an individual basis only. Thus, Plaintiff is only entitled to individual relief.” (Doc. # 237 at 3). Although Shamblin refers to a private attorney general provision of the TCPA, the Court’s detailed Order denying class certification limited the scope of this action to Shamblin’s individual claims and forestalled her from pursuing class-wide relief.