Deciding to step in to resolve a splint in the Circuits, the United States Supreme Court announced today that it granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857. That means that the Court will finally address an issue left open in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013): “Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on his claims,” even when the claim is pursued in a class action.
The Ninth Circuit in Campbell-Ewald held that a full offer of relief to the named plaintiff did not end the case, and remanded the case to the district court. Other Courts of Appeals, notably the Seventh Circuit, have held that an offer of judgment to the named plaintiff can moot the class action, though in the Seventh Circuit that only works if the offer is made prior the filing of a motion for class certification. See Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Fontenot v. McCraw, No. 13-20611, 2015 WL 304151 (5th Cir. Jan. 23, 2015) (finding claims moot where no motion for class certification had been filed). But see Stein v. Buccaneers, L.P., No. 13-15417 (11th Cir. Dec. 1, 2014) (unaccepted offer of judgment to named plaintiff did not moot named plaintiff’s claim, and suggesting that even if it were, plaintiff could pursue claims on behalf of class).
Some plaintiffs’ counsel have gotten around this issue by simply filing a perfunctory motion to for class certification at the time they file the complaint, and then typically moving to stay that motion. How the Supreme Court will address the issue will be very interesting to both the plaintiff and defense bar as a reversal could enable an early resolution to class actions, particularly in statutory cases like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, where there may be no real damage, but statutory damages (and thus a maximum amount of damages) can easily be calculated.
We will update you on developments.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.