Juana Sanchez v. Prudential Pizza
709 F.3d 689
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Sanchez sued Prudential Pizza for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under Title VII in the Northern District of Illinois.
- Prudential Pizza served a Rule 68 offer to allow judgment against it for $30,000, stating it included all of Sanchez's claims for relief but did not mention costs or attorney fees.
- Sanchez accepted the offer seven days after it was made and the district court entered judgment accordingly.
- Sanchez moved for attorney fees; the district court denied, holding the offer covered all claims for relief, including fees, under contract principles.
- The Seventh Circuit held the Rule 68 offer silent on costs and fees, and ambiguities must be resolved against the offeror; Sanchez is entitled to attorney fees and costs under the Rule 68 offer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 68 offer included attorney fees | Sanchez argues the offer was silent on fees, so fees should be awarded. | Prudential Pizza argues the offer covered all claims for relief, implying fees may be included. | Ambiguity resolved against offeror; fees awarded to Sanchez. |
| Effect of ambiguity in Rule 68 offers on costs and fees | Ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the plaintiff to avoid strategic use. | Ambiguity should be interpreted to limit fees when not clearly included. | Ambiguities on costs/fees are resolved against the offeror; plaintiff entitled to fees and costs. |
| Whether the offer's reference to 'claims for relief' included attorney fees | Fees are part of relief requested and should be included. | Fees are not part of a plaintiff's 'claims' under Rule 68; they are separate costs. | Fees are not part of a 'claim'; offer silent on fees means not included. |
| Whether the district court properly treated the offer as including all relief | District court relied on contract principles to interpret the offer. | Offer language should be treated under Rule 68, with ambiguity resolved against the offeror. | Proper approach is Rule 68 interpretation; ambiguity resolved against offeror; remand for fees. |
| Remedy for ambiguity in Rule 68 offers | Sanchez should receive attorney fees and costs. | Fees should be limited if ambiguity exists, to prevent overreach. | Judgment reversed and remanded for award of attorney fees and costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985) (fees may be included as 'costs' under Rule 68 when statute provides feeAwards)
- Webb v. James, 147 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 1998) (ambiguous Rule 68 offers place risk on the offeror)
- Nordby v. Anchor Hocking Packaging Co., 199 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 1999) (ambiguities in Rule 68 offers must be resolved against the offeror)
- Harbor Motor Co. v. Arnell Chevrolet-Geo, Inc., 265 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2001) (Rule 68 offer interpretation principles in appellate review)