Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

An Offer You Can Refuse

May 1, 2017 by Joseph H. Lang, Jr. and D. Matthew Allen

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently confronted (again) a situation where a defendant made an offer of judgment to the putative class representative to provide all of the relief available to the individual plaintiff. How does such an offer affect a putative class representative prior to class certification? May the putative class representative refuse the offer of judgment and avoid a determination of mootness?

In particular, the defendant in this case served the plaintiff with a Rule 68 offer of judgment before the plaintiff moved for class certification (the plaintiff did move for class certification after the offer of judgment). After that, the defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s class action complaint because the plaintiff’s claims had been mooted by its offer of judgment.

The district court entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor on his individual claims, denied his motion for class certification, and dismissed the plaintiff’s putative class action, noting that, “in the absence of a claim against defendant, plaintiff cannot adequately represent the purported class.”

On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the final judgment and remanded. In determining that an unaccepted offer of judgment of complete relief did not moot the case, the Second Circuit was guided by recent decisions in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), and Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc, Inc., 850 F.3d 507 (2d Cir. 2017).

The Second Circuit acknowledged that the Supreme Court left open one question in Gomez that could have a bearing on defendants’ arguments in these scenarios. That is, the Supreme Court expressly refused to rule on the hypothetical where a defendant deposits the full amount of a plaintiff’s individual claim in an account payable to that plaintiff and the court enters a judgment in that plaintiff’s favor for that amount.

But the Second Circuit said that hypothetical was not implicated in this case because “the district court entered a judgment that should not have been entered in the first place” and the defendant had not deposited the full amount of a plaintiff’s individual claim in an account payable to that plaintiff but rather sent the plaintiff a certified check to satisfy the judgment. (The plaintiff did not accept the certified check and the defendant did not seek leave to deposit the funds in the amount of its offer with the court.) The Gomez hypothetical is “thus not present here. As such, we need not, and do not, decide whether a different outcome would result if the facts here matched this hypothetical.”

By way of comparison, the District Court of Maryland ruled in the wake of Gomez that “a measure which makes absolutely clear that the defendant will pay the complete relief the plaintiff can recover and that the plaintiff will be able to receive that relief will moot the issue in controversy.” See Gray v. Kern, 143 F. Supp. 3d 363, 367 (D. Md. 2016).

Lary v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., et al., No. 15-601-cv, 2017 WL 1314878 (2d Cir. Apr. 10, 2017) (unpublished).

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Saved By The Bellwether Trial in the Ninth Circuit

Next Article »

More Bad News for Uber, This Time From the Southern District of California
Joseph H. Lang, Jr.

About Joseph H. Lang, Jr.

Joseph H. Lang Jr. is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida.

D. Matthew Allen

About D. Matthew Allen

Matt Allen is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.