Offer of Judgment Served Hours Before Motion for Class Certification Filed Moots TCPA Claim


In Barr v. The Harvard Drug Grp., LLC, 13-62019, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79422 (S.D. Fla. June 11, 2014), the court found that an offer of judgment served via email mooted the plaintiff’s claim despite the filing of a motion for class certification later that same day.

The class action complaint alleged that the defendant sent faxes in violation of the TCPA. The defendant served an offer of judgment on the plaintiff’s attorneys via email on November 27, 2013, at 11:12 am and also via UPS. The defendant offered to pay $1,500 for each alleged violation of the TCPA, to pay any costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and to stipulate to an injunction and the entry of a judgment against it. At 3:25 pm that same day, the plaintiff moved for class certification.

Moving to dismiss the case, the defendant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the defendant offered the plaintiff full and complete relief and that no controversy exists. The court pointed out that the Eleventh Circuit has not yet ruled whether an offer of full relief eliminates an actual controversy between the parties. Trial courts in the Southern District of Florida, however, have followed the Seventh Circuit on this issue, which held that an offer of full requested relief moots the case.

Under that line of cases, filing a motion for class certification before the offer of full relief is tendered will save the plaintiff’s class action complaint from mootness. On the other hand, “a motion for class certification filed after an offer of judgment under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 had been made does not restore the controversy and the court’s jurisdiction.” Id. at *4 (citations omitted).

In opposing the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff did not argue that the defendant failed to offer the full requested relief, but argued that because the email service was invalid, the motion for class certification was filed first. The court rejected the argument because the plaintiff’s attorneys consented to receive papers via electronic means when they submitted the CM/ECF registration form and this consent extends to notices attorneys send between themselves and do not file with the court. Id. at *8. The court further noted that Rule 68 only requires the party making an offer of judgment to serve the offer on the opposing party.

In the end, the plaintiff’s contrived attempt to get his motion for class certification filed before receiving the offer of judgment in the mail was soundly rejected.


Written by:

Published In:

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

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* 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.