618 F. App'x 864
7th Cir.2015Background
- Delia Webster sued Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC under the TCPA and FDCPA after Bayview continued automated calls and sent a debt letter following her bankruptcy discharge. She sought only individual relief in the original complaint.
- Webster filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint adding class allegations and simultaneously moved for class certification.
- While those motions were pending, Bayview tendered (offered) full relief for Webster’s individual claims; Webster rejected the tender.
- Bayview moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on mootness grounds and to strike the class-certification motion as moot; the district court granted dismissal and denied the amendment and class-certification motions as moot.
- On appeal, this court reversed based on Chapman v. First Index, Inc., holding that a defendant’s tender of full relief does not moot the plaintiff’s suit; the case was remanded and the denials of the amendment and class-certification motions were vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a defendant’s offer/tender of full relief to an individual plaintiff moot the lawsuit? | Webster: Tender did not moot because she sought more than what tender provided and had pending class claims. | Bayview: Tender fully satisfied Webster’s individual claims, eliminating Article III standing and mooting the suit. | Tender does not moot the litigation; dismissal reversed (per Chapman). |
| Should the court deny leave to amend to add class claims once individual claims are tendered? | Webster: Amendment and class-certification were filed before/while tender pending; should not be rendered moot by tender. | Bayview: With individual claims mooted, amendment and class-certification are moot and should be denied. | Vacated district court’s denial; remanded for district court to exercise discretion on amendment and certification. |
| Are consequences like waiver or estoppel appropriate for rejecting a full tender? | Webster: Rejection is proper to pursue class claims. | Bayview: Rejection should trigger consequences (waiver/estoppel). | Court declines to decide; leaves consequences to district court. |
| Does Chapman overrule prior 7th Circuit decisions that treated offers as mooting? | Webster relied on Chapman to negate mootness. | Bayview relied on older precedent to support mootness. | Chapman controls; prior contrary decisions overruled to the extent they hold an offer moots the case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015) (defendant’s offer of full compensation does not moot litigation)
- Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011) (prior holding that offer could moot suit, overruled by Chapman)
- Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 595 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2010) (prior mootness precedent discussed and limited by Chapman)
- Rand v. Monsanto Co., 926 F.2d 596 (7th Cir. 1991) (earlier decision treating offers as potentially mooting claims, overruled to the extent inconsistent with Chapman)
- Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2014) (mootness issue presented to Supreme Court; relevant circuit split)
- United States v. Sanford-Brown, Ltd., 788 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard for leave to amend is district-court discretion)
- Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008) (factors bearing on whether a plaintiff is an adequate class representative)