Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Tendering Funds to Support Unaccepted Offer of Judgment Still Does Not Moot Case

July 19, 2016 by D. Matthew Allen

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 the claims and mooted the class.

In May, a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case, unlike the defendant in Campbell-Ewald, the defendant mailed the plaintiff’s attorney a cashier’s check for $4,500, the amount the plaintiff would have recovered for the three improper unsolicited sales calls made to her cell phone.  It argued that Campbell-Ewald did not apply because “tender” is different from an “offer” of tender.  The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument, at least under the facts before it.  At bottom, the parties didn’t know whether the defendant only made three calls to the plaintiff.  This lack of clarity meant that the defendant couldn’t show that the plaintiff actually received all the money damages to which she claimed entitlement.  Moreover, although the defendant argued that if additional improper calls were discovered, the plaintiff could recover more money by seeking to enforce the judgment, the court ruled that under Campbell-Ewald, the judgment never should have been entered.   The court did not squarely hold that a tender is the same as a bare offer under the Supreme Court’s Campbell-Ewald analysis.  Nonetheless, that seems to be the practical import of its decision.

May v. N. Am. Bancard LLC, 14-2574 (6th Cir. July 6, 2016).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

A Tale of Two Decertification Motions

Next Article »

Eleventh Circuit’s Liberal Reading of Bonner Mall a Game Changer for Class Actions?
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.