Coker v. Select Energy Services, LLC
161 F. Supp. 3d 492
S.D. Tex.2015Background
- Plaintiff Christopher Coker filed an FLSA collective-action suit against his former employer Select Energy Services, LLC on June 3, 2015 and moved for class certification.
- Select Energy answered and asserted that a Rule 68 offer of judgment had provided Coker complete relief, and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as moot.
- The parties briefed the Rule 68/mootness issue and argued it at the initial pretrial conference on October 6, 2015.
- The legal question turns on whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer that would fully satisfy a named plaintiff’s individual claim moots that plaintiff’s claim and prevents pursuit of class/collective relief.
- The Fifth Circuit’s Hooks en banc proceedings and the Supreme Court’s grant in Campbell‑Ewald (oral argument held) present controlling authority likely to resolve the jurisdictional question.
- The district court stayed the case and discovery pending resolution of the Fifth Circuit/Supreme Court decisions, finding limited prejudice, potential hardship to defendant if stay denied, and strong judicial‑economy considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer that would fully satisfy the named plaintiff’s claim moots the plaintiff’s individual FLSA claim | Coker relies on Hooks: an unaccepted offer does not moot a named plaintiff’s claim in a putative class action | Select Energy: a Rule 68 offer of complete relief moots the plaintiff’s individual claim under Genesis Healthcare/Symczyk and thus destroys Article III jurisdiction | Court did not decide on the merits; stayed the case pending controlling appellate/Supreme Court rulings |
| Whether a mooted individual claim prevents the named plaintiff from pursuing collective/class relief | Coker: rejection of offer should not eliminate ability to seek class/collective relief | Select Energy: if individual claim is moot, plaintiff lacks the personal stake to represent a class, so class action cannot proceed | Court noted split in circuits; deferred resolution pending Hooks/Campbell‑Ewald and stayed proceedings |
| Whether the court should exercise its discretion to stay proceedings pending appellate/Supreme decisions | Coker: brief stay may prejudice him, but not substantially argued to outweigh other factors | Select Energy: stay appropriate to avoid unnecessary expense if jurisdictional threshold is resolved against plaintiff | Court granted stay — found limited prejudice, defendant hardship if forced forward, and strong judicial‑economy reasons favoring a stay |
| Effect on supplemental state-law claims if federal claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | Coker: not fully developed here; implicit interest in keeping state claims | Select Energy: if federal claim dismissed, court should decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state claims | Court stayed rather than reached this issue; recognized that dismissal of federal claim would likely eliminate supplemental jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013) (addressing whether an unaccepted offer moots an FLSA action)
- Hooks v. Landmark Indus., Inc., 797 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2015) (Fifth Circuit panel decision holding an unaccepted offer does not moot a putative class plaintiff’s claim; noted here as pending en banc review)
- Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 135 S. Ct. 2311 (2015) (Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether an offer of complete relief moots a plaintiff’s claim)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to establish Article III standing/subject‑matter jurisdiction)