Lucas v. Coastal Advantage Marketing, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-60450-CIV-DIMITROULEAS
LYNARIANE LUCAS,
Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Coastal Advantage Marketing LLC,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING IN PART REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; SUSTAINING
IN PART OBJECTIONS; DENYING MOITON TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Coastal Advantage Marketing LLC
(“Defendant” or “Coastal”)’s Motion to Compel Arbitration or, Alternatively, Dismiss [DE 8]
and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”) [DE
24]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 24], Plaintiff Lynarine Lucas
(“Plaintiff” or “Lucas”)’s Objections [DE 25], Defendant’s Response [DE 28], Plaintiff’s Reply
[DE 29], and the record herein.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and proposed class members, filed this action against
Defendant on March 10, 2025, alleging that she received text messages from Defendant that
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, (TCPA), and the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act, § 501.509, Fla. Stat., (FTSA). See [DE 1]. Defendant filed a Motion
to Compel Arbitration, arguing that Plaintiff agreed that all disputes or claims between Plaintiff
Case 0:25-cv-60450-WPD Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 1 of 4

and Defendant would be settled by final and binding arbitration. See [DE 8]. The Court referred
the Motion to Magistrate Judge Patrick Hunt for appropriate disposition or report and
recommendation. See [DE 9]. After briefing, Judge Hunt held an evidentiary hearing on the
Motion on September 30, 2025, in which evidence and witness testimony was presented. See
[DE 22]. On November 5, 2025, Judge Hunt entered a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that the Motion be granted. See [DE 24]. Plaintiff subsequently filed Objections
to the Report, which the Court will now resolve.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United
States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the
portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the
specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be
sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784
(citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific
objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de
novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at
783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x
at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the
record and the Objections. The Court has carefully conducted a de novo and independent review
of the factual issues based on the record, including by a careful review of the transcript of the
Case 0:25-cv-60450-WPD Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 2 of 4

evidentiary hearing conducted by Judge Hunt on September 30, 2025. See [DE 28-1]. The Court
is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
III. 	DISCUSSION
In reaching his conclusion that Defendant Coastal met its burden regarding compelling
plaintiff to arbitrate, Magistrate Judge Hunt found in relevant part that when Plaintiff used the
Assistance Team website on February 10, 2025, Plaintiff proceeded through the website by
checking boxes and agreeing to terms and conditions, that Defendant Coastal was a Marketing
Partner of Assistance Team on February 10, 2025 and was listed as such on the website at the
time, and that the Assistance Team’s website contained a binding, mandatory arbitration
provision to which Plaintiff consented. See [DE’s 24, 28-1]. The Court agrees with Judge Hunt’s
evidentiary findings as to these issues. The Court also with the evidentiary finding that Plaintiff
agreed to receive marketing calls and text messages from assistance-team.com and Assistance
Team’s Marketing Partners, which included Defendant Coastal. See [DE’s 24, 28-1].
However, the Court disagrees with Judge Hunt’s analysis and conclusion as to the issue
of whether the arbitration provision on the Assistance Team website to which Plaintiff agreed
binds Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims against Defendant Coastal. The arbitration provision at
issue is explicitly limited to disputes between “you,” meaning Plaintiff, and “the Company,”
defined on the website exclusively as assistance-team.com. The broad “arising out of or relating
to” the website language contained in the arbitration clause is only broad as to the arbitrable
subjects that the signatories to the arbitration agreement have agreed to arbitrate, not as to the
identity of the parties subject to the arbitration clause. There is no language in the clearly written
text of the arbitration clause that would allow Assistance Team’s Marketing Partners, such as
Defendant Coastal, to bind Plaintiff to arbitration, through a third-party beneficiary theory or any
Case 0:25-cv-60450-WPD Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 3 of 4

other theory regarding the “Marketing Partner” relationship between Defendant Coastal and
Assistance Team. Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt the Report as to this issue.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	As set forth above, the Report [DE 24] is hereby APPROVED IN PART; the
Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the Report IN PART;
2. 	Plaintiff’s Objections [DE 25] are SUSTAINED IN PART.
3. 	Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration or, Alternatively, Dismiss [DE 8] is
DENIED.
4. 	Defendant shall file an Answer to the Complaint on or before January 12, 2026.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida,
this 29th day of December, 2025.
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Magistrate Judge Hunt
Case 0:25-cv-60450-WPD Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2025 Page 4 of 4