Christopher Hrivnak v. NCO Portfolio Management Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hrivnak sues multiple debt‑management entities and a law firm under FDCPA and Ohio law for individual and class relief.
- Defendants served a Rule 68 offer: $7,000 plus costs/fees to settle all of Hrivnak’s claims.
- Hrivnak rejected the offer; defendants argued it mooted the case including the class claims.
- District court rejected mootness and allowed certification/claims to proceed; interlocutory appeal granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- Court analyzes whether a Rule 68 offer can moot an entire case when it does not fully satisfy the plaintiff’s demand; jurisdiction remains if merits not fully resolved.
- Holding: Offer did not moot Hrivnak’s case because it did not provide all requested relief; court retains jurisdiction and affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 68 moot a case if the offer doesn’t meet all relief sought? | Hrivnak: offer moots all claims. | Defendants: offer provides full relief, mootness ensues. | No; incomplete offer does not moot the case. |
| Can a Rule 68 offer moot individual and uncertified class claims? | Plaintiff’s broader relief remains at issue. | Offer targets only some claims; not all relief. | Not moot because not all claims are satisfied. |
| Does mootness deprive federal courts of jurisdiction in this context? | Jurisdiction survives unless all relief is guaranteed. | Offer ends controversy if fully satisfied. | Jurisdiction remains; mootness concerns merits, not jurisdiction. |
| Is the court required to resolve merits to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 68? | Merits remain for class/individual relief. | Rule 68 could influence costs but not abolish jurisdiction. | Merits questions can be addressed separately; jurisdiction preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (mootness distinguished from merits; injury still present post-seating)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (2013) (mootness not based on geographic displacement; merits matter)
- Primax Recoveries, Inc. v. Gunter, 433 F.3d 515 (2006) (jurisdiction intact where claims not insubstantial on merits)
- Moore v. Lafayette Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2006) (retain jurisdiction when merits questions do not render case insubstantial)