Church v. Accretive Health, Inc.
299 F.R.D. 676
S.D. Ala.2014Background
- Plaintiff Mahala A. Church filed a Complaint (Feb. 11, 2014) against Accretive Health, Inc. asserting FDCPA violations and willful bankruptcy-discharge violations, framed as a putative class action.
- Plaintiff seeks a nationwide class and a Southern District of Alabama subclass who received similar Accretive collection letters.
- No scheduling order, discovery deadlines, or Rule 26(f) conference had occurred; case was at a procedural starting block.
- On April 22, 2014, Church filed a barebones Motion for Class Certification and a Motion to Stay consideration pending discovery.
- Church relied on Seventh Circuit precedent (Damasco/McMahon) to justify treating the Rule 23 motion as a placeholder and staying later briefing.
- The Court denied Church’s Motion to Enter Stay and denied the Rule 23 Motion as premature, allowing renewal at an appropriate time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to permit a premature Rule 23 class-certification motion and stay. | Church seeks to file and delay substantive ruling to allow discovery. | Defendant argues the motion is premature and inefficient. | Denied; placeholder motion not granted; renewal allowed later. |
| Whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer moots a putative class action in this jurisdiction. | Damasco/McMahon suggest allowing class certification despite offers. | Seventh Circuit rule is minority; Eleventh Circuit unlikely to adopt. | Court declines to adopt the Seventh Circuit mootness approach; discusses but does not adopt. |
Key Cases Cited
- McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 744 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir.2014) (mootness rule for offers of judgment in class action context; can avoid mootness by timely class-certification motion)
- Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir.2011) (supports filing class-certification with complaint or delay for discovery)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (U.S. 2013) (discussion of mootness issues related to unaccepted offers of judgment)
- Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2011) (unaccepted Rule 68 offer does not moot class relief in some circuits)
- Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc., 639 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir.2011) (timely class-certification motion may relate back to complaint filing)
- Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913 (5th Cir.2008) (motion relates back when certification filed timely in FLSA context)
- Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir.2004) (relation back where no undue delay and preservation of class claims)