A magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied plaintiff’s motion to strike a Rule 68 offer of judgment served prior to class certification. The Rule 68 offer in this case – unlike those at issue in numerous conflicting opinions culminating in the United States Supreme Court’s 2016 Campbell-Ewald decision – was not an attempt to “pick off” the named plaintiff because it also included the putative class members. ... Keep Reading »
Search Results for: rule 68
Supreme Court Rules Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer of Judgment Cannot Moot Class Action
A divided Supreme Court ruled today in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment by a defendant cannot moot a putative class action. The decision settles a reserved question from Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk and resolves a circuit split on the issue. Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion holds that an unaccepted Rule 68 settlement offer “has no force” and like other unaccepted contract offers, “creates no lasting right or ... Keep Reading »
Missouri District Court Joins the List: Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer Does Not Moot Claims
Yet another court has found that an unaccepted Rule 68 Offer of Judgment will not moot a putative class action, even where the offer purports to satisfy all of plaintiff’s demands. Plaintiffs sued in the Eastern District of Missouri and proposed to represent a class of at least 60 former joint venture general managers of Panera Bread Company whose buyout payments from Panera were allegedly capped at an amount lower than that to which they contractually agreed. Plaintiffs ... Keep Reading »
First Circuit Holds an Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer Made Prior to Class Certification Won’t Moot Plaintiff’s Claims. Will Supreme Court Agree?
The First Circuit recently joined the Second, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that a Rule 68 offer made prior to class certification and rejected by plaintiff does not moot the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff, a private high school, brought the action against the corporate developer of a college-entrance exam, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and an analogous state statute related to unsolicited faxes it received. ... Keep Reading »
Fifth Circuit Holds Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer of Judgment Cannot Moot a Named Plaintiff’s Claim in a Putative Class Action
The defendant in a putative class action brought pursuant to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq., tendered a Rule 68 offer of judgment to the named plaintiff before class certification briefing occurred. The defendant proposed to settle with the named plaintiff for the maximum allowable statutory damages for his individual claim, and to pay costs accrued and reasonable and necessary attorney fees, through the date of acceptance of the ... Keep Reading »
Seventh Circuit Cleans Up the Law; Holds Rule 68 Offer of Complete Relief Does Not Render Litigation Moot
In a case that began as a putative class action, the Seventh Circuit held that a Rule 68 offer of complete relief does not render litigation moot. Plaintiff in Chapman v. First Index filed a "junk-fax" suit pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., after allegedly receiving two unsolicited and unauthorized faxes from First Index. He demanded $3,000 plus an injunction under § 227(b)(3)(A). Plaintiff proposed to represent a class ... Keep Reading »
Eleventh Circuit Holds Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer To Named Plaintiffs Does Not Moot A Class Action
The Eleventh Circuit recently held that a defendant may not moot a class action through an unaccepted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of complete relief to the named plaintiffs—but not to class members—before the named plaintiffs move to certify the class. In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit joined the majority of circuits that have addressed the same issue. Named plaintiffs filed a class action in state court against Buccaneers Limited Partnership (“BLP”) ... Keep Reading »
California District Court Denies Motion to Strike Rule 68 Offer of Judgment to Putative Class Representative, But Grants Motions to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses For Failure to Comply with Twombly’s and Iqbal’s Heightened Pleading Standard
In a recent case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging that defendants, a creditor and a debt collection firm, sent debt collection notices that failed to disclose the current creditor’s name in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the California equivalent. One defendant made an offer of judgment to the plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil ... Keep Reading »
West Virginia District Court Certifies Rule 23(b)(3) Class Of Plaintiffs Alleging Violations Of Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 1681(g)
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class, holding that the class was sufficiently ascertainable and satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiff’s class action complaint alleged that Quicken Loans violated section 1681g(g) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide credit score disclosures “as soon as reasonably practicable” after obtaining the plaintiff consumer’s credit report. Plaintiff ... Keep Reading »
Article III and Rule 23: Do We Stand Together or All on Our Own?
On December 16, 2020, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC. Specifically, the Supreme Court granted certiorari for the following question: Whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered. The Supreme Court’s certiorari ... Keep Reading »
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next Page »