Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, 786 F.3d 195

Tanasi filed a putative nationwide class action under Rule 23 claiming improper overdraft fees; he never moved for class certification.
Nine days after the complaint, defendants served a Rule 68 offer of judgment "on his individual claims" for $10,000 plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs — an amount exceeding Tanasi’s alleged individual damages.
Tanasi did not accept the offer within 14 days, and it lapsed; defendants then moved to dismiss, arguing the unaccepted Rule 68 offer mooted both his individual and putative class claims.
The district court held the unaccepted offer mooted Tanasi’s individual claims but preserved the putative class claims, denied dismissal on justiciability grounds, and granted interlocutory certification under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b).
The Second Circuit affirmed that the district court retained Article III jurisdiction, but on an alternative ground: under Second Circuit precedent an unaccepted Rule 68 offer alone does not moot a plaintiff’s individual claims prior to entry of judgment.
The panel expressly declined to decide whether putative Rule 23 claims can independently preserve justiciability after an individual claim is moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of complete relief renders an individual claim moot under Article III	Tanasi: an unaccepted Rule 68 offer does not moot his individual claims; courts must retain jurisdiction absent entry of judgment	Defendants: the offer provided full relief and therefore mooted the individual and class claims without need for judgment	Held: An unaccepted Rule 68 offer alone does not render individual claims moot in the Second Circuit; jurisdiction remained because no judgment had been entered
Whether putative Rule 23 class claims independently preserve Article III jurisdiction after an individual claim is moot	Tanasi: putative class claims can preserve justiciability even if individual claims are moot	Defendants: both individual and putative class claims were mooted by the unaccepted offer	Held: Court did not decide this question (left for another day)

Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985) (explaining Rule 68’s purpose to encourage settlement and avoid litigation)
Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 132 S. Ct. 2277 (2012) (mootness requires that court cannot grant any effectual relief)
City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000) (definition of mootness as loss of live controversy)
McCauley v. Trans Union, L.L.C., 402 F.3d 340 (2d Cir. 2005) (an unaccepted Rule 68 settlement offer alone cannot render a case moot)
ABN Amro Verzekeringen BV v. Geologistics Americas, Inc., 485 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2007) (mootness occurs when parties lack legally cognizable interest or personal stake)
Diaz v. First Am. Home Buyers Prot. Corp., 732 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2013) (an unaccepted Rule 68 offer that would fully satisfy a claim does not render it moot)
Stein v. Buccaneers Ltd. P’ship, 772 F.3d 698 (11th Cir. 2014) (unaccepted Rule 68 offers do not moot individual or class claims)
Doyle v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 722 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2013) (offer need not comply with Rule 68 to moot a case when parties treat it as dispositive; does not overrule McCauley)