819 F.3d 558
1st Cir.2016Background
- LaPierre sued Officer Kevin Sledge, the City of Lawrence, and the police chief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Sledge sexually assaulted her; Sledge was convicted criminally and defaulted in the civil case.
- On Sept. 5, 2014 the City served a Rule 68 offer of judgment for $300,000 (silent as to costs/attorney's fees).
- The City sent an "amended" offer on Sept. 8 adding: "This $300,000.00 figure also inclusive of any costs and fees incurred to date, including attorney's fees."
- On Sept. 9 LaPierre accepted the original Sept. 5 offer and filed the offer, notice of acceptance, and proof of service with the district court, stating she would move separately for fees and costs.
- The City moved to strike the filing, arguing there was no meeting of the minds because of its attempted pre-acceptance clarification; the district court granted the motion and later granted summary judgment for the City on the merits (finding Sledge not acting under color of state law).
- The First Circuit reversed, holding the Sept. 5 Rule 68 offer (silent on costs) had been validly accepted and must be enforced "with the costs then accrued."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LaPierre validly accepted the Sept. 5 Rule 68 offer | Sept. 5 offer was proper Rule 68 offer; silence on costs means costs are recoverable and acceptance was valid | City's Sept. 8 "amended" offer constituted a permissible pre-acceptance clarification, so no meeting of the minds existed | Held: Acceptance of Sept. 5 offer was valid; pre-acceptance unilateral clarification not permitted because the offer was not ambiguous |
| Whether extrinsic evidence may be considered to interpret a Rule 68 offer silent on costs | Extrinsic evidence not admissible; Rule 68 and Marek require courts to add "costs then accrued" when offer silent | City urged courts to consider parties' communications/intent to show offer included costs | Held: Extrinsic evidence not considered; Marek and Rule 68 control and silence means court must include costs then accrued |
| Whether Rule 68 permits unilateral pre-acceptance clarification changing material term (cost inclusion) | Plaintiff: Rule 68's text and precedent prevent unilateral clarifications on non-ambiguous offers | City: Radecki and other authority allow clarification in some circumstances | Held: Clarification allowed only when original offer is ambiguous/incomplete; Sept. 5 offer was not ambiguous, so clarification invalid |
| Remedy: Whether district court should have entered judgment under the accepted offer | LaPierre: Court must enter judgment for $300,000 plus costs/fees then accrued | City: No binding acceptance, so no judgment under Rule 68 | Held: Vacated district court orders; remanded with instruction to enter judgment per the Sept. 5 offer including costs then accrued |
Key Cases Cited
- Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985) (Rule 68: a lump-sum offer silent as to costs requires the court to add "costs then accrued")
- Garayalde-Rijos v. Municipality of Carolina, 799 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2015) (Rule 68 offers interpreted under ordinary contract principles; offers irrevocable for 14 days)
- Radecki v. Amoco Oil Co., 858 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1988) (pre-acceptance clarification permitted where original offer was ambiguous/incomplete)
- Lima v. Newark Police Dep't, 658 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2011) (when a Rule 68 offer is silent as to fees/costs in a § 1983 case, court must fix fees/costs after acceptance)