The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision earlier this week in a case raising the issue whether a defendant can cut off a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action by making an offer of full relief to individual named plaintiffs.
Court of Appeal Dismisses Pet Valu Class Action and Confirms Courts Not to Recast Common Issues Where Prejudicial to Defendants
A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Pet Valu franchise class action should give defendants to class proceedings optimism that courts will not allow plaintiffs to recast their claims at late stages of the class proceedings.
Relying on “basic principles of contract law,” the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an unaccepted settlement offer and offer of judgment under Rule 68 are “legal nullit[ies]” that have no effect on whether a live controversy remains between the parties.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court held in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016), that when a defendant makes an offer to resolve the named plaintiff’s claim for full value, but the plaintiff turns it down, the case is not moot, and simply proceeds.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated a strategy defendants have used to stem the rising tide of class action lawsuits—offering the named plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit full relief, mooting their individual claim (regardless if they accept it), and along with it, rendering the class action moot.
The Supreme Court yesterday denied an attempt by a defendant to moot a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), on the basis of an unaccepted settlement offer to the named plaintiff.
On January 15, 2015, the United States Supreme Court agreed to address whether an appellate court has jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his or her claims with prejudice.
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “cases” and “controversies.” As the Supreme Court recently explained in Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, a lawsuit does not present an Article III case or controversy and “must be dismissed as moot” when “an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a ‘personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit,’ at any point during the litigation.”
To avoid protracted class-action litigation in federal court, defendants sometimes make Rule 68 offers of judgment to the named plaintiff to moot the case or controversy.
Not Taking “Yes” for an Answer: U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Unaccepted Offer of Complete Individual Relief Does Not Moot Plaintiff’s Individual or Class Action Claim
On January 20, 2016, in a highly anticipated decision (see October 27, 2015 blog) that will have implications for class action practice nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an unaccepted offer of judgment sufficient to completely satisfy an individual claim does not moot that claim or any class claim.