2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142527
D. Md.2013Background
- Kensington Physical Therapy (MD) sued Jackson Therapy Partners (GA/FL) under the TCPA alleging unsolicited fax advertisements and sought class certification under Rule 23.
- Defendant served a broad settlement Offer in February 2011 (no express offer of judgment); Plaintiff did not accept.
- Defendant renewed the Offer in September 2011 and sent a Supplemental Offer in October 2011 that expressly offered judgment and waived confidentiality; Plaintiff rejected.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, arguing the (complete) Supplemental Offer mooted Plaintiff’s individual and putative class claims; the district court initially denied dismissal.
- The case was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyk; after Genesis, Defendant renewed its motion to dismiss arguing Genesis requires dismissal.
- The district court denied the renewed motion: it found the Supplemental Offer was "complete," but held that the "relation back" doctrine (and related exceptions) prevent pre-certification offers of full individual relief from mooting a Rule 23 putative class claim where the named plaintiff has not unduly delayed seeking certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendant's settlement Offer(s) were "complete" under Simmons | The original Offer was incomplete; the Supplemental Offer was complete but still does not moot the class claim | The Offers (including the original via catchall language) were sufficient to moot Plaintiff's claims | Court: Original Offer incomplete (no express offer of judgment); Supplemental Offer was complete (express offer of judgment; no confidentiality) |
| Whether a complete pre-certification settlement offer moots a Rule 23 putative class action | A pre-certification full offer does not moot the class claim where plaintiff moves for certification within a reasonable time (relation-back doctrine) | A complete offer that fully satisfies the named plaintiff's claim moots the litigation and defeats Article III jurisdiction | Court: Applied relation-back/majority approach — a complete pre-certification offer does not automatically moot the putative class claim absent undue delay; denied dismissal |
| Effect of Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyk on Rule 23 class actions | Genesis is limited to FLSA/collective actions and did not resolve the Rule 23 question; its dictum does not require dismissal here | Genesis supports mooting claims resolved before certification and undermines relation-back in non-transitory statutory claims | Court: Genesis did not control; its discussion was dicta and concerned FLSA collective actions, so it did not mandate dismissal here |
| Whether interlocutory certification under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) was warranted | N/A (Plaintiff opposed) | Certify the mootness question to the Fourth Circuit due to split of authority | Court: Denied certification — even assuming a controlling legal question, interlocutory appeal would not materially advance termination and would prejudice Plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. United Mortgage & Loan Inv., 634 F.3d 754 (4th Cir. 2011) (settlement offers must be "complete" — express offer of judgment and no incompatible confidentiality — to potentially moot collective/class claims)
- Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004) (Rule 68 offers do not moot class actions where a certification motion can relate back to the complaint)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (U.S. 2013) (addressed mootness in FLSA collective-action context and declined to resolve Rule 23 question)
- Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1975) (class action not mooted when representative's claim becomes moot after certification)
- Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, 639 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2011) (unaccepted offer of judgment before certification does not moot proposed class action)