374 N.C. 436
N.C.2020Background
- Christopher Chambers, an uninsured patient, was billed $14,358.14 for an emergency appendectomy at Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital and sued on behalf of a putative class seeking declaratory relief that the hospital could recover only the reasonable value of services.
- Moses Cone filed a counterclaim for payment; litigation proceeded for years with delay, a related case (Hefner) stayed proceedings, and Chambers later amended his complaint.
- Before any ruling on class certification, Moses Cone voluntarily dismissed its collection claim against Chambers and ceased attempts to collect the bill, effectively waiving his individual obligation.
- The trial court dismissed Chambers’s class action as moot because the named plaintiff no longer had a personal stake; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court held that North Carolina should adopt a limited “pick‑off”/relation‑back exception: when a named plaintiff’s individual claim is mooted before he has had a fair opportunity to seek class certification and the plaintiff has not unduly delayed, the individual claim can relate back to the complaint date for justiciability and the class action is not necessarily moot.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to apply the relation‑back/Richardson standard (fair opportunity + no undue delay) to determine whether the case remains justiciable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant’s unilateral mooting of the named plaintiff’s individual claim before class certification renders the entire putative class action moot | Chambers: No; adopt pick‑off/relation‑back so certification can relate back when plaintiff lacked a fair opportunity to seek certification and acted without undue delay | Moses Cone: Yes; once the named plaintiff’s claim is satisfied and he is no longer a class member, the case is moot and must be dismissed | Court: Adopted limited pick‑off/relation‑back rule—class action not automatically moot if (1) plaintiff lacked a fair opportunity to seek certification and (2) plaintiff did not unduly delay; remand to apply test |
| What standard governs whether an individual claim "relates back" for mootness purposes | Chambers: Relation back applies when plaintiff could not reasonably have sought certification before the claim was mooted and acted diligently thereafter | Moses Cone: Relation back should not apply absent bad faith or ongoing pattern of "picking off"; motive and broader pattern matter | Court: Relation back governed by Richardson factors—(a) fair opportunity to present certification, and (b) no undue delay by plaintiff; defendant’s motive not required to be shown |
| Whether federal decisions (e.g., Campbell‑Ewald/Genesis) preclude a pick‑off exception under state law | Chambers: Federal precedents (Richardson and others) support a pick‑off exception; Campbell‑Ewald left the question open | Moses Cone: Supreme Court decisions counsel against creating a non‑statutory exception; mootness should apply | Court: Distinguished Genesis and Campbell‑Ewald; held federal decisions are instructive but not controlling for interpreting Rule 23 under North Carolina law and adopted the Richardson approach |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Bledsoe, 829 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2016) (adopting relation‑back/pick‑off framework: fair opportunity + no undue delay)
- Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (an unaccepted offer does not moot a claim; left open whether actual satisfaction before certification moots a class action)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (2013) (distinguishable FLSA conditional‑certification context)
- Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980) (discussing risks of defendant "picking off" named plaintiffs)
- Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) (effect of class certification on mootness of named plaintiff’s claim)
- Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc., 639 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2011) (relation‑back and undue‑delay analysis in debt‑collection context)
- Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004) (applied relation‑back in Rule 68/collection context)
- Crow v. Citicorp Acceptance Co., 319 N.C. 274 (1987) (North Carolina favors liberal construction of Rule 23)
- Reep v. Beck, 360 N.C. 34 (2005) (discussing sequencing of motions and exceptions to mootness)