Gomez v. CAMPBELL-EWALD CO.
805 F. Supp. 2d 923
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- Gomez sues Campbell-Ewald under TCPA for mass, unauthorized text advertisements to cellular numbers nationwide.
- Plaintiff alleges a May 11, 2006 Navy recruitment text was sent without consent and repeated messages followed.
- Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees for a putative nationwide class.
- Parties stipulated that class-certification briefing would occur after Defendant answered and discovery planning, delaying deadlines.
- Defendant made a Rule 68 offer and a separate settlement offer; Plaintiff moved to strike and to certify class; the court denied dismissal, granted strike, and deferred class certification pending discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a pre-certification Rule 68 offer moot a putative class action? | Gomez argues relation back preserves standing; offer cannot moot yet-unfiled class claims. | Campbell-Ewald contends an offer ends litigation once personal claims are settled. | Rule 68 offer does not moot unfiled class claims. |
| Should the relation back doctrine apply to pre-certification Rule 68 offers? | Relation back allows certification motion to relate back to initial filing, preserving standing. | Relation back is inappropriate for this pre-certification, offer-struck scenario. | Relation back applies; pre-certification offer does not defeat class claims. |
| Is TCPA class relief available in federal court when silent on class actions? | TCPA silent on class relief; presumed available in federal civil actions. | Statute is silent but may not implicitly authorize nationwide class relief in TCPA contexts. | Class relief presumed available. |
| Should the court grant or defer class certification in light of discovery needs? | Certification should proceed; discovery is necessary for class issues. | Discovery should occur under a schedule; certification should wait. | defer class certification until after class discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) (mootness and standing in class-action context)
- United States v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) (see above)
- Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) (relation back to preserve standing for class certification)
- Roper v. Simmons, 445 U.S. 326 (1980) (relied on for mootness and class actions context)
- Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913 (5th Cir. 2008) (relation back doctrine in pre-certification offers)
- Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004) (Rule 68 offers before certification; relation back)
- Ptasinska v. U.S. Department of State, 2008 WL 294907 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (unpublished district decision; not binding here)
- Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1992) (personal stake analysis; voluntary settlements contrasted)
- Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004) (relation back when offer precludes reasonable certification ruling)
- Smith v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 570 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2009) (voluntary settlement and loss of personal stake; certification denied)