Jeffrey M. Stein D.D.S. M.S.D. P.A. v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership
772 F.3d 698
11th Cir.2014Background
- Six named plaintiffs sued Buccaneers Limited Partnership (BLP) in state court alleging unsolicited TCPA faxes to them and a putative nationwide class; statutory damages of $500 per violation (trebled for willfulness) and injunctive relief were sought.
- BLP was served Aug 1, removed to federal court Aug 16, and on Aug 19 served each named plaintiff with a Rule 68 offer of judgment purporting to provide complete relief to the individual offerees (amounts varied by alleged faxes) and an injunction; offers stated they would be filed only if accepted or for costs determination.
- Two days after serving the offers BLP moved to dismiss as moot; plaintiffs filed a (premature) motion to certify the class the next day; the district court denied certification as premature.
- The Rule 68 acceptance deadline passed without acceptance; the district court dismissed the action as moot without entering judgment or awarding relief to the plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Eleventh Circuit heard two questions: (1) does an unaccepted Rule 68 offer moot an individual plaintiff’s claim; and (2) if so, does proffering full relief to all named plaintiffs before a certification motion moots the class action?
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of complete relief moots the individual plaintiff’s claim | An unaccepted Rule 68 offer is a legal nullity; rejection leaves the claim live and the court can still grant relief | An unaccepted Rule 68 offer that would fully satisfy a plaintiff’s claim renders the claim moot | Held: No. An unaccepted Rule 68 offer does not moot the individual claim; the offers were withdrawn and inadmissible under the rule, so the individual claims remained live |
| Whether proffering full relief to named plaintiffs before class certification moots the class action | Even if individual claims were mooted, class claims remain live under relation-back doctrines (Sosna/Zeidman) if the named plaintiffs diligently pursue certification; timing of a certification motion is not decisive | If defendant offers full relief to named plaintiffs before a certification motion, the class action is mooted and cannot proceed | Held: No. A Rule 68 proffer of full relief to named plaintiffs does not, without more, moot a class action where named plaintiffs have acted diligently; Zeidman and the Sosna line control |
Key Cases Cited
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013) (Supreme Court assumed without deciding that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer could moot an individual FLSA collective-action plaintiff and dismissed where no opt-ins remained)
- Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 651 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1981) (tender of named plaintiffs’ individual claims does not moot a proposed Rule 23 class action; relation-back protects class claims)
- Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) (class certification gives class members a legal status separate from named plaintiff; relation-back doctrine can preserve class claims even after named plaintiff’s claim matures or becomes moot)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (case not moot despite named plaintiffs’ changed circumstances; capable-of-repetition/evading-review and relation-back doctrines apply)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (delayed certification until after named plaintiffs’ claims became moot did not deprive court of jurisdiction)
- Diaz v. First Am. Home Buyers Prot. Corp., 732 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2013) (adopts Symczyk dissent approach: unaccepted Rule 68 offer does not moot individual claims)