Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C.
312 F.R.D. 304
E.D.N.Y2016Background
- This is a putative class action where defendants offered Rule 68 judgment to the individual plaintiffs (Brady and Cardillo) and then moved under Rule 67 to deposit the offered amount with the Clerk to moot the individual claims.
- Defendants sought court permission under Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a) to deposit funds with the Court; they framed this as consistent with their prior Rule 68 offer of judgment.
- Plaintiffs objected, arguing the deposit is a misuse of Rule 67, does not moot the case under controlling precedent, and does not provide complete relief (no liability admission; class and injunctive claims remain).
- The parties disputed whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez permits mooting an individual’s claim by depositing the full amount in court and entering judgment for the plaintiff.
- The district court emphasized that Rule 67 is a discretionary procedural device for safekeeping disputed funds, not a mechanism to alter parties’ rights, and noted Gomez’s directive that a would‑be class representative with a live claim must be given an opportunity to seek certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 67 deposit may be used to moot individual claims and defeat class certification | Rule 67 is being misused; deposit does not moot claims or address class/injunctive relief | Deposit of full individual‑claim amount with the Clerk can moot the individual plaintiffs’ claims consistent with Gomez | Denied — Rule 67 deposit is not appropriate here; court will not permit deposit to moot claims |
| Whether Gomez allows mooting an individual claim by depositing funds and entering judgment for plaintiff | Gomez did not authorize such a tactic; unaccepted offers don’t moot claims | Gomez suggests depositing full amount and entering judgment might be different and could moot claim | Court follows Gomez: unaccepted offers don’t moot claims and Gomez left open whether a deposit-plus-judgment changes result; court declines to allow Rule 67 deposit to sidestep Gomez’s protections |
| Whether depositing funds provides complete relief (liability, class, injunctive relief) | Deposit fails to admit liability and leaves class and injunctive claims unresolved | Deposit of full individual damages would resolve the individual’s monetary claim | Court: deposit would not address class or injunctive claims and thus is not an appropriate means to dispose of the dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (unaccepted settlement offers do not moot a plaintiff’s case; left open whether a defendant’s deposit plus court judgment would change result)
- Ray Legal Consulting Group v. DiJoseph, 37 F. Supp. 3d 704 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (Rule 67 is a procedural device for safekeeping disputed funds; deposit is within court discretion)
- John v. Sotheby’s, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (Rule 67 relieves depositor of burden of administering an asset after court deposit)