Sean Conway v. Portfolio Recovery Associates
840 F.3d 333
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Sean Conway sued Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA) under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as a putative class action.
- Conway survived PRA’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. PRA then offered Conway judgment covering the individual relief he sought; Conway did not accept the offer.
- After the offer expired, PRA moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the unaccepted offer eliminated a live case or controversy.
- The district court, following then-controlling Sixth Circuit precedent (O’Brien), dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and simultaneously entered a final money judgment in Conway’s favor.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez controls and makes clear that an unaccepted offer/judgment generally does not moot a plaintiff’s claim; the district court’s dismissal and judgment were therefore erroneous.
- The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded, restoring Conway’s ability to litigate his individual and class claims in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unaccepted offer of judgment/settlement that would fully satisfy plaintiff's individual claim renders the case moot | Conway: an unaccepted offer does not moot the case; Article III controversy remains | PRA: the offer/judgment cured Conway's individual stake and deprived courts of jurisdiction | Held: Campbell-Ewald controls—an unaccepted offer generally does not moot the case; dismissal was erroneous |
| Whether a district court’s entry of a judgment in favor of a plaintiff who rejected an offer can eliminate appellate jurisdiction | Conway: a judgment that should not have been entered does not extinguish the plaintiff’s stake or appellate jurisdiction | PRA: the final judgment in Conway’s favor removed his personal stake, so there is no appealable controversy | Held: A ‘‘judgment that should never have been entered’’ does not necessarily destroy the appellant’s stake if the effects can be undone; appellate jurisdiction exists to correct the error |
| Whether the district court’s dismissal of class-certification and other motions on mootness grounds stands | Conway: dismissal of class claim was premised on the same jurisdictional error and was mistaken | PRA: (implicitly) class claims were moot because individual relief was granted | Held: Dismissal of class-certification as moot was also erroneous; remand permits further consideration in district court |
| Whether Campbell-Ewald leaves any unresolved hypothetical affecting this case | Conway: Campbell-Ewald resolves the issue here | PRA: Campbell-Ewald doesn’t apply because the district court entered an enforceable judgment for Conway | Held: Court rejects PRA’s distinction; Campbell-Ewald applies and PRA cannot rely on an erroneously entered judgment to moot the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (an unaccepted offer of full relief generally does not moot a plaintiff’s claim)
- O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (prior Sixth Circuit precedent that the district court relied on and which this court found inconsistent with Campbell-Ewald)
- Deposit Guaranty Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980) (appellate jurisdiction requires a continuing personal stake)
- Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (generally discussing finality under 28 U.S.C. § 1291)
- Al-Dabagh v. Case Western Reserve Univ., 777 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2015) (appeal remains if the effects of a district court order can be undone)