Allen Ex Rel. J.D.L. v. City of Grovetown, 681 F. App'x 841

Love died by hanging in Grovetown jail after arrest and detention; plaintiffs sue under §1983 against Grovetown and officials; district court dismissed some claims; Rule 68 offer of $100,000 including all relief; district court treated offer as ambiguous and awarded fees; on appeal, fee award affirmed and cross-appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; decision addresses interpretation of Rule 68 and appellate timeliness

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Rule 68 offer unambiguously included fees	Love's estate contends offer included fees due to 'claims for relief'	Offer intended to settle all relief; ambiguity supported by extrinsic emails	Offer ambiguous; fees awarded to plaintiffs
Whether the cross-appeal was timely and within jurisdiction	Cross-appeal challenging dismissal should be considered timely	Timeliness deficient; only fee-appeal timely	Cross-appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Reynolds v. Roberts, 202 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000) (de novo review of settlement offers)
Util. Automation 2000, Inc. v. Choctawhatchee Elec. Co-op., Inc., 298 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2002) (ambiguous Rule 68 terms resolved against drafter)
Sanchez v. Prudential Pizza, Inc., 709 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2013) (Rule 68 ambiguity where 'claims for relief' unclear)
Lima v. Newark Police Dep’t, 658 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2011) (phrase 'all of Plaintiff’s claims for relief' ambiguous)
Webb v. James, 147 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 1998) (illustrative of ambiguity in offers)
Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Engineers & Participating Employers, 134 S. Ct. 773 (2014) (finality and appeal timing related to pre- and post-judgment orders)
Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2010) (timeliness and jurisdiction in notices of appeal)