Gatreaux v. DKW ENTERPRISES, LLC
958 N.E.2d 1088
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiffs filed a class action under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Wage Payment and Collection Act against McDonald's franchise defendants in 2008.
- Defendants tendered to the named plaintiffs all amounts allegedly due, prior to class certification, asserting mootness.
- Plaintiffs rejected the tender, and defendants moved to dismiss under 2-619.1 as moot.
- Circuit court dismissed as moot, relying on Barber v. American Airlines, which rejected the 'pick off' exception and held tender before certification moots the case.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing Barber should not bar their suit and that the tender fully or partially failed to provide relief, or was not properly accepted.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding Barber controls and the tender moot the action since it predated class certification and offered full relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the tender moot the class action? | Gatreaux et al. argue tender does not moot because not all class issues are resolved and due to lack of certification. | Winbush et al. contend Barber forecloses any class action once full relief offers precede certification. | Yes, moot under Barber. |
| Does Barber allow no exception for 'reasonable diligence'? | Barber should be limited by public policy and diligence in pursuing certification. | Barber bars proceeding regardless of diligence because tender predates certification. | Barber controls; no diligence exception recognized. |
| Did the tender provide full monetary relief? | Plaintiffs claim the tender did not specify or actually grant full relief. | Tender mirrored the complaint's requested relief including damages, interest, costs, and fees. | Tender provided full relief; mootness valid. |
| Was the tender properly before the court given acceptance was not required? | Unaccepted tender cannot moot a case. | Acceptance is not required to moot; timing and full relief matter. | Tender before certification moots the action regardless of acceptance. |
| Should the court consider an alternative 'pick off' exception? | Plaintiffs contend a limited 'pick off' exception should allow class action to proceed. | Supreme Court rejected the 'pick off' exception in Barber. | Barber rejects any 'pick off' exception; not adopted here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barber v. American Airlines, Inc., 241 Ill.2d 455 (Ill. 2011) (settlement tender before certification moots the class action; no 'pick off' exception)
- Wheatley v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, 99 Ill.2d 481 (Ill. 1984) (tender may moot if no certification; class claims cannot proceed without named plaintiff)
- Akinyemi v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 391 Ill.App.3d 334 (Ill. App. 2009) (reasonable diligence analysis for pre-certification tender mootness)
- Hillenbrand v. Meyer Medical Group, S.C., 308 Ill.App.3d 381 (Ill. App. 1999) (tendered relief can moot while still allowing other class members to pursue claims)
- Arriola v. Time Insurance Co., 323 Ill.App.3d 138 (Ill. App. 2001) (prior pre-Barber decisions on mootness and tender; 'pick off' origins)
- Gelb v. Air Con Refrigeration & Heating, Inc., 326 Ill.App.3d 809 (Ill. App. 2001) (tender sufficiency and effect on class action mootness)
- Bruemmer v. Compaq Computer Corp., 329 Ill.App.3d 755 (Ill. App. 2002) (tender of relief can moot individual claims; impact on class claims)
- Cohen v. Compact Power Systems, LLC, 382 Ill.App.3d 104 (Ill. App. 2008) (tender and mootness considerations in class actions)