Gartreaux v. DKW Enterprise
2011 IL App (1st) 103482
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Burnell Gatreaux, Timothy Range and Frank Selby filed a class action against DKW entities and related parties in Cook County alleging violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
- The complaint sought class certification for hourly nonexempt employees and claimed improper wages, overtime, unlawful deductions for uniforms, and deficient time/ payroll records.
- Prior to class certification, defendants tendered to each named plaintiff all amounts allegedly due, at applicable wage rates, plus overtime, deductions corrections, interest, costs and attorney fees.
- Plaintiffs rejected the tender; defendants then moved to dismiss as moot under 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1, arguing there was no live controversy.
- The circuit court dismissed finding mootness due to the tender and lack of reasonable diligence to pursue class certification.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, holding Barber v. American Airlines controls and a tender before a motion for class certification moots the action, despite any reasonable diligence argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does pre-certification tender moot a class action? | Gatreaux argues tender should not moot the class because Barber requires class certification to be pending. | DKW contends Barber bars any later class action once full relief is tendered to named plaintiffs. | Yes; tender before certification moots the case under Barber. |
| Is the tender’s sufficiency (full relief) a prerequisite to mootness? | Gatreaux asserts the tender did not specify or actually grant full relief to all class members. | DKW argues the tender mirrored relief requested, constituting full relief and mooting the action. | Tender matched the relief requested and was sufficient to moot. |
| Did plaintiffs' rejection of the tender affect mootness? | Gatreaux maintains that rejection preserves the controversy for the class. | DKW maintains mootness is determined by the tender's timing and content, not acceptance. | Rejection does not defeat mootness when tender occurred before certification and offered full relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barber v. American Airlines, Inc., 241 Ill. 2d 450 (Ill. 2011) (settlement tender before certification moots unless certification is pending)
- Wheatley v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, 99 Ill. 2d 481 (Ill. 1984) (settlement offers can moot in absence of class relief; timing matters)
- Akinyemi v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 391 Ill. App. 3d 334 (Ill. App. 2009) (pre-certification tender can moot if full relief offered)
- Arriola v. Time Insurance Co., 323 Ill. App. 3d 138 (Ill. App. 2001) (unaccepted tender can moot if it provides full relief)
- Hillenbrand v. Meyer Medical Group, S.C., 308 Ill. App. 3d 381 (Ill. App. 1999) (tender offering full damages can moot individual claims)
- Bruemmer v. Compaq Computer Corp., 329 Ill. App. 3d 755 (Ill. App. 2002) (represents mootness when defendant tenders relief)
- Cohen v. Compact Power Systems, LLC, 382 Ill. App. 3d 104 (Ill. App. 2008) (tender adequacy and timing affect mootness analysis)
- Gelb v. Air Con Refrigeration & Heating, Inc., 326 Ill. App. 3d 809 (Ill. App. 2001) (tender not specifying declaratory relief can still moot suit)