New York District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin found class counsel’s allegation that they were experienced and competent was false because they could not provide any case in which they were certified as class counsel or recovered monetary relief for class member. As a result, the court found that class counsel violated Rule 11. The court declined to award attorney fees as a sanction, however, finding that the public reprimand was a sufficient deterrent. The Rule 11 ... Keep Reading »
Search Results for: rule 68
An Offer You Can Refuse
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 ... Keep Reading »
Two Second Circuit Cases, Two Applications of Campbell-Ewald, Two Different Results, Three Weeks Apart
Within roughly three weeks, the Second Circuit issued two opinions applying the Supreme Court’s Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez decision to class action cases involving Rule 68 offers of judgment. On February 15, 2017, in Leyse v. Lifetime Entertainment Services, LLC, the Second Circuit upheld entry of judgment in a case brought by a plaintiff individually and on behalf of a putative class alleging violations under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The plaintiff ... Keep Reading »
“Placeholder” Motions to Certify are Unnecessary after Campbell-Ewald According to South Carolina District Court
Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2016 opinion in Campbell-Ewald, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina ruled that a class action plaintiff need not file a “placeholder” motion to certify to avoid a defendant’s attempt to “pick-off” the plaintiff and moot the class with a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment (OJ). Plaintiff filed its putative class action complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Practices Act and immediately sought ... Keep Reading »
Tendering Funds to Support Unaccepted Offer of Judgment Still Does Not Moot Case
On July 6, the Sixth Circuit addressed a question apparently left open by the Supreme Court in its recent Campbell-Ewald case. In Campbell-Ewald, the Supreme Court ruled that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment did not moot class claims when no motion for class certification is pending. A plaintiff who rejects a rule 68 offer of tender extinguishes the offer. The court did not address, however, whether an actual tender of funds to a class plaintiff extinguished ... Keep Reading »
…And We’re Back! Still No Resurgence of “Picking Off” After Campbell-Ewald
Following an interlocutory appeal, in which the First Circuit ruled that a Rule 68 offer made prior to class certification did not moot the plaintiff’s claim (see here), defendant returned to the Massachusetts district court seeking dismissal on Rule 68 grounds. Defendant had done its homework: relying on the Supreme Court’s January Campbell Ewald decision (see here), defendant had sent plaintiff a certified check for $4,800 and moved to deposit the same amount with the ... Keep Reading »
No Resurgence of “Picking Off” After Campbell-Ewald
We previously reported on two Rule 68 offer of judgment cases: Campbell-Ewald Co. v Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663 (2016), see Supreme Court Rules Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer of Judgment Cannot Moot Class Action , in which the Supreme Court left open the possibility that an actual tender of the full amount of plaintiff’s claim would moot the claim, and Bais Yaakov v. Graduation Source, 2016 WL 1271693 (S.D.N.Y. March 29, 2016), see Will Tender of Full Amount of Named Plaintiff’s ... Keep Reading »
Will Tender of Full Amount of Named Plaintiff’s Claim Moot a TCPA Class Action?
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663 (2016), the Supreme Court held that Rule 68 offers of judgment to a class representative do not moot a class action. See https://classifiedclassaction.com/supreme-court-rules-unaccepted-rule-68-offer-judgment-cannot-moot-class-action/. The Supreme Court left open the possibility that an actual tender of the full amount of plaintiff’s claim, evidencing an intent to pay – as opposed to a mere contract offer, would moot the ... Keep Reading »
Classified Monthly: A Roundup of Class Action Decisions From Federal Appellate Courts
Welcome to the inaugural edition of Classified Monthly: A Roundup of Class Action Decisions from Federal Appellate Courts. The Roundup normally will arrive in your inbox the first week of each month and will cover the previous month’s notable decisions. Because December was a light month for decisions, this inaugural edition covers both November and December. Second Circuit Krasner v. Cedar Trust Realty, Inc. – This decision interprets the ... Keep Reading »
Delivery in 30 Minutes or Less: Supreme Court Punts on Who Qualifies Under FAA Exemption for Interstate Commerce Workers
In Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona, Domino’s petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify whether drivers making only in-state deliveries of goods, ordered by in-state customers from an in-state warehouse, engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, exempting them from arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court on October 17, 2022, granted Domino’s petition for certiorari, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling allowing the drivers to ... Keep Reading »