Spice v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore LLC, 1:16-cv-00366

Plaintiff Gloria Spice filed a putative class action under the FDCPA and moved to certify the class.
Defendant Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore LLC served a Rule 68 offer of judgment to Spice for $1,100 plus costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees on June 9, 2017.
Spice moved to strike the Rule 68 offer, arguing it was an improper “pick-off” tactic to force her to abandon the class by creating a conflict between her individual interest and the putative class’s interests.
Defendant argued Rule 68 authorizes offers of judgment and contains no class-action exception; the offer was a valid settlement tool.
The court considered Rule 68, Supreme Court precedent on unaccepted offers in class contexts, and the absence of binding Seventh Circuit authority creating a Rule 68 class-action exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Rule 68 offer to a named plaintiff before class certification is ineffective as an improper "pick-off"	Spice: such offers improperly coerce named plaintiffs to abandon class claims and should be ineffective	Blatt: Rule 68 applies; no class-action exception; offer was permissible settlement tool	Denied: court refused to strike the offer; Rule 68 not per se inapplicable in class actions
Whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer moots the class action	Spice: implication that such offers could undercut class claims	Blatt: offer does not moot and is lawful under Rule 68	Court relied on Supreme Court precedent that unaccepted offers do not moot class claims
Whether the court should extend the Rule 68 acceptance period beyond 14 days	Spice: requested 14 days after court order to reconsider if offer not struck	Blatt: not required to extend offer	Court declined to extend the offer period; cannot compel defendant to keep it open
Whether the court should decide possible future cost-shifting under Rule 68(d) if class later certified	Spice: concerned she might owe costs if individual recovery ≤ offer	Blatt: raised Rule 68(d) consequences	Court declined to rule on future cost-shifting as premature

Campbell–Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case)
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985) (Rule 68’s purpose is to encourage settlement and avoid litigation)
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346 (1981) (Rule 68(d) does not apply where judgment is entered for the defendant)