The nature of a class action requires defendants to think beyond the story or situation posed by one single plaintiff. When facing a lawsuit that potentially challenges a large-scale business practice or procedure, counsel often must focus on big-picture systemic issues that may affect hundreds or thousands of people. Yet sometimes, the deposition of a single person—the proposed class representative, commonly referred to as the “named plaintiff”—can elicit facts that tear the entire class action apart.

In August 2019, plaintiff Susan Drazen filed a class action complaint against GoDaddy.com, LLC (“GoDaddy”) for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”).  Drazen alleged that GoDaddy called and texted her through a prohibited automatic dialing system.  After Drazen’s case was consolidated with other cases asserting similar TCPA violations against GoDaddy, the named plaintiffs proposed a class action settlement agreement. 

On September 30, U.S. District Court Judge Rodney Smith denied class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action in which the named plaintiff “deceptively” prolonged calls to bolster his claims for damages. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, Johansen v. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc., No. 20-81076, at *10–11 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2021). This decision gives defendants a new tool, in TCPA matters and beyond, to potentially help defeat class certification.