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.” Today, in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (pdf), the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s unaccepted offer to satisfy the claims of a named plaintiff in a putative class-action lawsuit is not sufficient to render the suit moot.
Continue Reading Supreme Court holds that an unaccepted offer of judgment doesn’t moot a class action
Can an Offer of Judgment to the Named Plaintiff Moot a Class Action? Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez
Can a named plaintiff press ahead with a class action if he or she “won’t take ‘yes’ for an answer”? That colorful question, which Chief Justice Roberts asked counsel for the respondent during oral arguments yesterday in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, is at the heart of the debate over whether offers of judgment can moot class actions. By the end of the oral argument (pdf), it seemed clear that a number of the Justices were concerned about allowing a plaintiff whose individual claims would be fully satisfied by an offer of judgment to nonetheless invoke the machinery of the federal courts.
Continue Reading Can an Offer of Judgment to the Named Plaintiff Moot a Class Action? Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez
Ten Things Class Action Practitioners Need To Know About Potential Amendments To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 23
Rule 23 may be in for some major changes. The Advisory Committee has commissioned a Rule 23 subcommittee to investigate possible revisions to the class action rules. That subcommittee issued a report (pdf) discussing its progress, and recently has been conducting a “listening tour” of sorts regarding potential rule changes.
Our initial view is that the business community should have serious concerns about the approach that at least some members of the subcommittee appear to be taking, as several proposals are aimed at rolling back judicial decisions—including Supreme Court decisions—that are critical to ensuring that class actions satisfy the requirements of due process.
Here are ten things you need to know from the subcommittee’s report.Continue Reading Ten Things Class Action Practitioners Need To Know About Potential Amendments To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 23
Supreme Court to decide whether an offer of judgment for full relief moots a named plaintiff’s class-action claims
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to “cases” and “controversies.” The Supreme Court has held that “‘an actual controversy … be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.’” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997). Accordingly, “[i]f an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a ‘personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit,’ at any point during litigation, the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot.” Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523, 1528 (2013). In Genesis, the Court recognized that one “intervening circumstance” may arise under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a party to offer to allow judgment in favor of its adversary on specified terms. A party who rejects a Rule 68 offer, but obtains a judgment “not more favorable than the unaccepted offer,” must pay the costs accrued by the offering party between the offer and judgment. (We’ve previously blogged about Genesis.)
Today, the Court granted certiorari in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, No. 14-857, to determine whether a defendant’s unaccepted offer of judgment, made before a class is certified, that would fully satisfy the claim of a would-be class representative renders the plaintiff’s individual and class claims moot. The Court also granted certiorari to decide whether the derivative sovereign immunity doctrine recognized in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940), applies only to claims for property damage caused by public works projects.Continue Reading Supreme Court to decide whether an offer of judgment for full relief moots a named plaintiff’s class-action claims
Plaintiffs Who Settle Individual Claims Can’t Appeal Class Claims in the Ninth Circuit Unless They Retain a “Financial Interest” in the Case
The Ninth Circuit recently clarified the circumstances in which a plaintiff who settles his or her individual claims can appeal the denial of class certification of related claims. In Campion v. Old Republic Protection Company (pdf), the Ninth Circuit dismissed a class certification appeal as moot because the plaintiff had settled his individual claims. The court explained that a settling plaintiff must retain a personal, “financial” stake in litigation in order to appeal the denial of class certification—“the theoretical interest akin to a private attorney general” will not suffice.
The leading Ninth Circuit case on post-settlement class-certification appeals is Narouz
Continue Reading Plaintiffs Who Settle Individual Claims Can’t Appeal Class Claims in the Ninth Circuit Unless They Retain a “Financial Interest” in the Case
Update: Ninth Circuit to Decide Whether an Offer of Judgment to a Named Plaintiff Will Moot a Class Action
We’ve previously written about the petition for interlocutory appeal in Chen v. Allstate Insurance Co., a TCPA class action that involves an important issue for class action practitioners: can a named plaintiff refuse an offer of judgment for full relief and continue pursuing a class action? The Ninth Circuit recently granted (pdf) the petition and can be expected to issue a briefing schedule soon. We’ll continue monitoring this important case and report any developments
Continue Reading Update: Ninth Circuit to Decide Whether an Offer of Judgment to a Named Plaintiff Will Moot a Class Action
Judges Irked At Placeholder Class-Certification Motions Too
From a practitioner’s standpoint, one of my five least-favorite recent developments in federal class-action practice is the explosion in the number of premature motions for class certification that would-be class representatives file.
I understand the motivation behind these motions—often filed along with the initial complaint. Of course, they are not seriously intended to induce a ruling on class certification; to the contrary, they expressly request that the issue be tabled until the completion of discovery. The real reason that plaintiffs’ counsel file these motions is that they want to preclude the defendant from mooting the putative class action by making
Continue Reading Judges Irked At Placeholder Class-Certification Motions Too
Will the Ninth Circuit Revisit the Issue of Whether an Offer of Judgment to the Named Plaintiff Can Moot a Class Action?
Before the Supreme Court’s decision last Term in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013), the Ninth Circuit had held that a named plaintiff can continue to pursue a putative class action even after the defendant has extended that plaintiff an offer of judgment for the full individual relief sought in the complaint, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. See Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011). In a case that bears watching, a federal district judge in California recently certified for interlocutory review the question whether Pitts’s mootness holding remains good law. See Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 4:13-cv-00685-PJH (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2013).
Continue Reading Will the Ninth Circuit Revisit the Issue of Whether an Offer of Judgment to the Named Plaintiff Can Moot a Class Action?
Eighth Circuit Holds that a Plaintiff who Settles Individual Claims Lacks Standing to Challenge Denial of Class Certification
Here’s a common scenario: After unsuccessfully moving for class certification and having a petition for review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) rebuffed, the plaintiff wants to take another shot at an appeal. Can the plaintiff simply settle his individual claims—subject to his right to appeal the denial of class certification—so that he has a dismissal giving him an automatic right to an immediate appeal?
If you’re in the Third, Seventh, Eighth, or Ninth Circuit, the answer is no. Each of these courts have held that they lack jurisdiction over the appeal of a would-be class representative following such
Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Holds that a Plaintiff who Settles Individual Claims Lacks Standing to Challenge Denial of Class Certification
Supreme Court Holds that Plaintiff Whose Individual Claims Were Mooted by an Offer of Judgment Lacks Standing to Maintain FLSA Collective Action
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) permits an employee to file a “collective action” for damages against an employer individually and on behalf of other “similarly situated” employees who later choose to join the lawsuit. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). In Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, before any other employee had opted to join the suit, the defendant made an offer of judgment to the named plaintiff for the full relief sought by her individual claims. Today, the Supreme Court held—by a 5-4 vote—that the district court had properly dismissed the FLSA collective action for lack of
Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds that Plaintiff Whose Individual Claims Were Mooted by an Offer of Judgment Lacks Standing to Maintain FLSA Collective Action