The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
ROBERT O’DAY and WILLIAM
WEBSTER, on his own behalf and
others similarly situated
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No: 5:23-cv-59-GAP-PRL
INVESTMENT AT LAKE DIAMOND,
LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before, the Court, upon referral, in this Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29
U.S.C. § 201, case is the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to contact putative collective members.
(Doc. 36). Defendant objects to the extent that Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks to contact putative
class members by telephone. (Doc. 41 at ¶ 2). For the following reasons, the motion is
granted.
On May 15, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to facilitate notice to putative
class members, directing Defendant to produce a computer readable data file containing the
names, addresses, and telephone numbers of putative collective members working for it for a
three-year period within eleven days. (Doc. 24). In that Order, the Court approved Plaintiffs
mailing of a Notice (the “Notice”) to putative collective members. (Docs. 22 & 24). Pursuant
to that Order, the defendant gave Plaintiffs a list of thirteen putative collective action
members, noting that it lacked “both an address and telephone number for all of” them. (Doc.
36 at ¶ 3).1 Instead, for five members, only addresses were provided; for the other six
members, only telephone numbers were provided. Id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiffs represent that of the six
telephone numbers, two are landlines and four are wireless numbers. Id.; (Doc. 41 at 2 n.1)
(accepting, for purposes of Plaintiffs’ motion and its objection, that two numbers are for
landlines and four are wireless numbers).2
Now, Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks leave to contact the six putative collective members
whose phone numbers were provided. Specifically, as to the four wireless numbers, Plaintiffs’
counsel would like to send a text message requesting an address for mailing of the Notice.3
(Doc. 36 at ¶ 5). If no response is received within five days, Plaintiffs’ counsel would like to
call the wireless number “for the limited purpose of obtaining an address to which the Notice
will be sent.” Id. at ¶ 6. As to the two landline numbers, Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks to call them
“for the limited purpose of obtaining an address to which the Notice will be sent.” Id. at ¶ 7.
Defendant has no objection to Plaintiffs’ counsel sending the initial text message to the
1 Moreover, Defendant noted that due to a “lack of record-keeping . . . [it] is without
knowledge of all of the names of . . . [all putative collective members] for a three-year period, and is
also without both an address and telephone number for all of those known individuals.” (Doc. 28).
2 While Defendant argues that Plaintiffs provide no evidence or support for contending that
the numbers are landlines, the Court accepts counsel’s representation that the numbers are for
landlines.
3 Plaintiffs’ counsel proposes sending the following text message to the wireless numbers:
My name is Attorney Robert Norell. I represent current and former cart attendants
and similar workers at the Lake Diamond Golf & Country Club who were classified
as volunteers. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has authorized
distribution of a Notice to persons who were classified as volunteers about a lawsuit
that may affect their legal rights. Lake Diamond provided your name and phone
number as one of its volunteers but it does not have your current address. Please
confirm receipt of this text message, and if you choose to do so, please provide me
with a current mailing address so that we can send you the court-approved legal
Notice. Responding with your address will create no obligation to take further action
but will merely make it possible for you to receive the Notice by mail.
(Doc. 36 at ¶ 5).
wireless numbers, but objects to him calling the wireless and landline numbers. (Doc. 41 at ¶
1).
First, as Plaintiffs’ counsel points out, the purpose of seeking leave to contact putative
collective members is to identify their current addresses to send the Notice. As noted above,
Plaintiffs lack addresses for six putative collective members, and is sending the Notice through
the mail rather than by text message (or telephone). Given that Plaintiffs’ counsel lacks
another method for identifying addresses to mail the Notice to these six putative collective
members, it seems permissible for Plaintiffs’ counsel to call them as he proposes. See Ludlum
v. C&I Eng’g, LLC, No. 4:18-cv-05192-TOR, at *12 (E.D. Wash. May 16, 2019) (“Plaintiff's
Counsel may follow-up the mailed Notice and Consent Forms with contact by telephone to
those Putative Collective Action Members whose mailed contact information is incorrect or
no longer valid”). While Defendant argues that Ludlum is unanalogous to the instant facts, it
supports the instant determination, as here, Plaintiffs’ counsel lacks “mailed contact
information” for six putative collective members. Indeed, rather than using the telephone to
follow-up on incorrect or invalid addresses, telephone calls are used to find an address to mail
the Notice in the first instance.
Second, while Defendant contends that there “are certainly alternative, less intrusive
means for Plaintiffs to identify mailing addresses for these individuals,” it fails to identify any
of those alternative means. (Doc. 41 at ¶ 9). Telephone calls seem particularly apt in the
absence of an alternative method to identify the putative collective members’ addresses.4
4 See, e.g., Brown v. Body & Soul Servs., Inc., No. CV 16-0824, 2017 WL 2198192, at *5 (W.D.
La. May 2, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 2198623 (W.D. La. May 18, 2017)
(allowing counsel to first provide notice to prospective class members by mail, and “if any notices are
returned as undeliverable, then defendants would provide plaintiff with telephone numbers and/or
email addresses” for purposes of notice).
Likewise, Defendant argues that contact by telephone constitutes an invasion of privacy but
without an alternative method to ascertain the putative collective members’ addresses, an
invasion of privacy appears unavoidable. (Doc. 41 at ¶ 4) (quoting Tomassi v. City of L.A., No.
CV 08-1851 DSF (SSx), 2008 WL 4722393, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2008)).
Finally, Defendant argues that if the Court permits Plaintiffs’ counsel to contact the
putative collective members via telephone, the Court should require Plaintiffs’ counsel to
adhere to a script and only allow Plaintiffs’ counsel to call each putative class member once.
(Doc. 41 at ¶ 10) (quoting Contreras v. Land Restoration LLC, No. 1:16-CV-883-RP, 2017 WL
663560, at *8 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2017)). In Contreras, the court provided that plaintiffs could
only call putative class members once “for the purpose of ensuring receipt of the notice and
consent forms.” 2017 WL 663560, at *8. There, the plaintiffs had not requested telephone
numbers for the purpose of notice. Id. Instead, the plaintiffs were “permit[ted] to distribute
notice through mail, email, posting at the workplace, and inclusion in current employee's
paychecks.” Id.
Unlike Contreras, here, Plaintiffs are distributing notice solely through the mail. (Docs.
22, 24, 36). Moreover, unlike Contreras, Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks to call putative collective
members to identify an address for mailing the Notice, as opposed to calling to confirm an
address and receipt of the notice. Indeed, if Plaintiffs’ counsel does not receive a response to
his text message, then there is no address to confirm, or notice provided. See (Doc. 36 at ¶ 5),
supra note 1 at 2. While a confirmation call may sensibly be limited to a single occurrence,
here, the plaintiffs are far from confirming the receipt of the notice to the putative collective
members. Instead, Plaintiffs are trying to ascertain addresses to deliver the Notice. Hence,
more than one call to the same phone number may be necessary to identify an address for
delivery of the Notice.5 However, Plaintiffs’ counsel is cautioned to avoid unnecessary and
intrusive calls to putative collective members.
Further, to the extent that Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ counsel should be required
to adhere to a script when calling the putative collective members, the Court agrees. Because
Defendant presents no objection to Plaintiffs’ proposed text message script, it seems
appropriate to adopt a version of it with minor modifications for Plaintiffs’ counsel’s phone
calls. The Court proposes the following script:
My name is Attorney Robert Norell. I represent current and former cart
attendants and similar workers at the Lake Diamond Golf & Country Club who
were classified as volunteers. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida has authorized distribution of a Notice to persons who were classified as
volunteers about a lawsuit that may affect their legal rights. Lake Diamond
provided your name and phone number as one of its volunteers but it does not
have your current address. If you so choose, please provide me with a current
mailing address so that we can send you the court-approved legal Notice.
Responding with your address will create no obligation to take further action but
will merely make it possible for you to receive the Notice by mail.
(Doc. 36 at ¶ 5). However, if counsel disagrees with the Court’s proposed script, counsel shall
confer and file an agreed-upon script with seven days of this Order.
5 Other courts permit multiple phone calls to establish contact with the putative class member,
for example, in Brown, the Court stated:
Defendants also ask the court to restrict plaintiff to one attempt at calling or emailing
potential collective class members, and to limit that communication to determining
where a notice should be sent (for telephone calls) or stating that a copy of the notice
is attached (for emails). The court agrees that contact should be limited to a recitation
or provision of the notice on one occasion—once contact is established. However, plaintiff
should be permitted multiple attempts to establish contact with those individuals for
whom it is necessary to resort to notification via email and/or telephone.
Brown, 2017 WL 2198192, at *5 n.5.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on July 13, 2023.
PHILIP R. LAMMENS
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
-6-