Fontanez v. Wolverine Worldwide, Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 December 2022
• Docket Number: 8:22-cv-2538-KKM-TGW
• Parties: DORIS FONTANEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

DORIS FONTANEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. Defendant.

No. 8:22-cv-2538-KKM-TGW

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

December 27, 2022

ORDER

The Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA) prohibits telephone solicitors from making “a telephonic sales call if such call involves an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a number called without the prior express written consent of the called party.” Fla. Stat. § 501.059(8)(a). Doris Fontanez allegedly received at least one unsolicited text message from Wolverine World Wide, Inc., and sued on behalf of herself and others similarly situated for violations of the FTSA. (Doc. 1-1; Doc. 12.) Fontanez alleges no tangible harm suffered by her receipt of the unsolicited text message. Instead, Fontanez asserts that Wolverine “adversely affected and infringed upon [her] legal rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue.” (Doc. 12 ¶ 4.)

1

Fontanez filed this putative class action in state court in September 2022, and Wolverine removed the action under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in November 2022. (Doc. 1.) Wolverine moves to compel arbitration and to dismiss the action. (Doc. 8.) In response, Fontanez moves to remand, (Doc. 9), which Wolverine opposes, (Doc. 11). Fontanez also filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 12.) Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Fontanez's claim, the Court remands to state court.

The party removing a case to federal court bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Mack v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 994 F.3d 1353, 1356 (11th Cir. 2021). In addition, federal courts must independently assure themselves that they have jurisdiction over a case at every stage, regardless of whether the parties raise the issue or agree that jurisdiction exists. See Plains Com. Bank v. Long Fam. Land 8c Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316, 324 (2008); United States v. Ross, 963 F.3d 1056, 1062 (11th Cir. 2020). As such, after removal, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Article III limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies,” see TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2203 (2021); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559 (1992), thereby “confm[ing] the federal courts to a properly judicial role,” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). The case-or-controversy requirement permits federal courts to exercise their power only for “the determination of

2

real, earnest, and vital controversy between individuals.” Chi. Sc Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 345 (1892). To demonstrate standing, the party invoking federal jurisdiction must prove three elements: the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact, the defendant must have caused that injury, and a favorable decision must be likely to redress it. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.

An injury in fact means “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or...