Damasco v. Clearwire Corp.
662 F.3d 891
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Damasco filed a putative class action in Illinois state court against Clearwire under the TCPA for unsolicited text messages.
- Clearwire offered Damasco and up to ten other affected people $1,500 per text plus costs and to stop messages; Clearwire argued the offer mooted the case.
- Clearwire removed to federal court; the district court dismissed as moot and denied reconsideration; Damasco appealed.
- Damasco argued the offer was not definite under Illinois law and that mootness should not apply due to buy-off concerns, inherent transience, and Rule 68 considerations.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the mootness ruling, rejected an exception to allow post-offer class certification, and endorsed a simple relief-preservation mechanism via simultaneous certification filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a complete relief offer to a named plaintiff moots the case before class certification? | Damasco—Holstein should be limited or distinguished; offers to named plaintiffs can’t moot a putative class. | Clearwire—complete relief pre-certification moots the claim under Holstein. | Yes; complete relief offered before certification moots the case. |
| Should an exception to mootness be recognized to permit class certification after a complete relief offer to named plaintiffs? | Damasco—flexible mootness doctrine should permit post-offer certification to avoid buy-offs. | Clearwire—no new exception; adherence to Holstein controls. | No; no exception adopted; Holstein remains controlling. |
| Do alternative grounds (inherently transitory claim, Sosna-related timing) save the live controversy? | Damasco—claims could remain live and relate back to initial filing; class certification timing could preserve controversy. | Clearwire—the offer eliminates the plaintiff's stake regardless of alleged transience; Sosna not applicable. | Not persuasive; mootness governs once full relief is offered. |
| Does the district court's Fahey-related exchange affect mootness analysis on appeal? | Damasco—Fahey hearing comments show mootness reasoning was flawed. | Clearwire—Fahey deal focused on settlement, not mootness; initial mootness ruling stands. | No reversible error; district court did not abuse discretion; mootness mooted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holstein v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1145 (7th Cir. 1994) (complete offer moots before class certification)
- Greisz v. Household Bank (Ill.), N.A., 176 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 1999) (offer to named plaintiff can moot while class not certified)
- Primax Recoveries, Inc. v. Sevilla, 324 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2003) (cannot moot after move for class certification; buy-off concerns)
- Susman v. Lincoln Am. Corp., 587 F.2d 866 (7th Cir. 1978) (buy-off concerns in class actions)
- Gates v. City of Chicago, 623 F.3d 389 (7th Cir. 2010) (cannot moot by post-certification offers; rule reaffirmed)
- Deposit Guaranty Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (U.S. 1980) (cannot moot appeal from denial of certification)
- Olson v. Brown, 594 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2010) (inherently transitory claims; live controversy requirement)
- Turek v. General Mills, Inc., 662 F.3d 423 (7th Cir. 2011) (rigorous analysis for class certification)
- Jacobs, Board of Sch. Comm'rs of City of Indianapolis v., 420 U.S. 128 (1975) (dismissal for lack of live controversy when not pursuing class)