M.D. Fla. Rejects “Placeholder” Class Certification Motion


As we have previously noted, several courts in the Middle District of Florida have made it abundantly clear that plaintiffs should not file “placeholder” class certification motions solely for the purpose of thwarting an attempt to “pick-off” a named plaintiff. See Stein, et al. v. Buccaneers LP, No. 13-2136 (M.D. Fla.) (J., Merryday); Haight v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., No. 13-1400 (M.D. Fla.) (M.J., Spaulding). Last week, the court reiterated this stance yet again. See Dickerson v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100323 (M.D. Fla. July 23, 2014) (J. Moody).

In Dickerson, the plaintiff filed a bare-bones class certification motion before the defendant had even responded to the complaint in order to preempt a potential offer of judgment. It then asked the court to defer its ruling until after discovery. Given the precedent in the district, the court denied the motion as premature. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s concerns about Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011) – which held that the pendency of a class certification motion prevents an offer of judgment from mooting a named plaintiff’s claim – was unfounded because the 7th Circuit decision is not binding in the 11th Circuit and “is a decidedly minority view.” It also expressed doubt that the 11th Circuit would allow an unaccepted offer of judgment to moot a named plaintiff’s claim even in the absence of a class certification motion, as that tactic had faced “a withering attack from four U.S. Supreme Court Justices, with no rebuttal from the others.” Finally, it observed that “Plaintiff’s strategy comes with a cost. It burdens the Court with an obviously premature motion that is devoid of content and the motion remains on the Court’s docket as pending….”

Coincidentally, the 11th Circuit will soon have its chance to put the issue to rest. The Stein court, which dismissed the action as moot as a result of a pre-class certification offer of judgment, was appealed to the 11th Circuit and argued yesterday. We will keep you posted of any decision.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.