Johnson v. Midwest ATM, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106178
D. Minnesota2012Background
- Johnson withdrew cash from Midwest's Kenwood Parkway ATM on Jan 8, 2011 and was charged a $2.50 user fee; on-screen notice appeared, but Johnson claims no exterior notice.
- Johnson filed an amended class-action complaint on Sept 30, 2011 alleging EFTA and Regulation E violations.
- Midwest served Rule 68 offers: an individual offer of $1,050 plus costs and fees, and a class-wide offer of 1.01% of net worth plus costs and fees.
- Midwest argues the offers render the action moot, depriving the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court explains mootness burdens the defendant to show the case is no longer live, and analyzes mootness under Rule 68 offers.
- The court ultimately concludes no case or controversy remains and grants dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the individual Rule 68 offer moot the individual EFTA claim? | Johnson contends the question is moot only as to the class, not necessarily the individual claim. | Midwest argues the $1,050 offer provides complete relief and moots the individual claim. | Yes; the individual claim is moot. |
| Does the class-wide Rule 68 offer moot the class action? | Johnson argues the offer is vague and may not resolve the class, requiring ongoing proceedings. | Midwest contends the class-wide offer provides definite relief and moots the class action. | Yes; the class action is moot. |
| Does Rule 68 mootness defeat ongoing Rule 23 proceedings and fee issues? | Johnson argues mootness might not preclude class-certification oversight and potential fees. | Midwest maintains mootness ends the dispute regardless of Rule 23 considerations. | Yes; mootness terminates the controversy and justifies dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., 676 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 2012) (Rule 68 offer must specify definite relief to moot)
- Roble v. Celestica Corp., 627 F.Supp.2d 1008 (D. Minn. 2007) (complete relief renders action moot)
- Goodmann v. People’s Bank, 209 Fed.Appx. 111 (3d Cir. 2006) (Rule 68 and class-action context considerations)
- Rand v. Monsanto Co., 926 F.2d 596 (7th Cir. 1991) (Rule 68 offers and mootness guidance)
- Zimmerman v. Bell, 800 F.2d 386 (4th Cir. 1986) (precedes discussions on mootness under settlement offers)
- Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (costs and fees considerations under Rule 68 in statutory context)
- Clausen Law Firm, PLLC v. Nat’l Acad. of Continuing Legal Educ., 827 F.Supp.2d 1262 (W.D. Wash. 2010) (class-action offers and Rule 68 applicability)