Skip to main content

Magistrate Judge Goodman Is Already Citing the New 11th Circuit Opinion on Picking Off Class Reps!


Last Tuesday we covered a landmark 11th Circuit opinion dealing with the recent practice of attempting to "pick off" class reps via unaccepted Rule 68 offers.

Not one to let things sit for very long, Magistrate Judge Goodman has already weighed in:
However, this is no longer a viable defense strategy in the Eleventh Circuit. This past Monday, on December 1, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit definitively stated that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case. Stein v. Buccaneers Ltd. Pʹship, No. 13‐15417, 2014 WL 6734819, at *3 (11th Cir. Dec. 1, 2014) (“Giving controlling effect to an unaccepted Rule 68 offer—dismissing a case based on an unaccepted offer as was done here—is flatly inconsistent with the rule.”). In so doing, the Eleventh Circuit explicitly quoted and embraced a portion of the dissenting opinion in Symczyk, where Justice Kagan, writing for four justices, stated:
That thrice‐asserted view [that the defendantʹs offer mooted the plaintiffʹs individual claims] is wrong, wrong, and wrong again. We made clear earlier this Term that “[a]s long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. ––––, ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 1023 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). By those measures, an unaccepted offer of judgment cannot moot a case. When a plaintiff rejects such an offer—however good the terms—her interest in the lawsuit remains just what it was before. And so too does the courtʹs ability to grant her relief. An unaccepted settlement offer—like any unaccepted contract offer—is a legal nullity, with no operative effect. As every first‐year law student learns, the recipientʹs rejection of an offer “leaves the matter as if no offer had ever been made.” Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Columbus Rolling Mill, 119 U.S. 149, 151 (1886). Nothing in Rule 68 alters that basic principle; to the contrary, that rule specifies that “[a]n unaccepted offer is considered withdrawn.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 68(b). So assuming the case was live before—because the plaintiff had a stake and the court could grant relief—the litigation carries on, unmooted.
Stein v. Buccaneers Ltd. Pʹship, No. 13‐15417, 2014 WL 6734819, at *3 (11th Cir. Dec. 1, 2014) (quoting, entirely, Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. at 1533–34 (Kagan, J., dissenting)). Based on this newly‐issued binding precedent alone, the Undersigned denies the motion to dismiss.
Is he the first one in the district to cite this new case?

Methinks yes.

(Here's hoping he works Starland Vocal Band into his next opinion!)

Comments

  1. When it's right it's right!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gonna find me baby gonna hold her tight

    ReplyDelete
  3. You didn't include a link to the JG order, SFL.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Off Topic, sorry.

    What is the relationship with the Miami Dade County Courthouse and All Aboard Florida?

    ReplyDelete
  5. They are talking about building the new courthouse adjacent to the station.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Kind of Federal Judge!

Sure we have Scott Rothstein and his lovely Tom James clothier Romina Sifuentes, but Louisiana has ED LA judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.:
A federal judge from Louisiana who had run up big gambling debts routinely solicited money and gifts from lawyers with cases before his court, Congressional investigators said Tuesday as the House opened impeachment hearings in the judge’s case. The judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court, had more than $150,000 in credit card debt by 2000, mostly for cash advances spent in casinos, investigators said. Judge Porteous’s requests for cash became so frequent that one New Orleans lawyer said he started trying to dodge the judge.“He began to use excuses that he needed it for tuition, he needed it for living expenses,” the lawyer, Robert Creely, told a House Judiciary Committee task force. “I would avoid him until I couldn’t avoid him anymore.”
Mr. Creely said he and his law partner, Jacob Amato, gave Judge Porteous an estimated $20,000 o…

Honoring Richard C. Seavey

I drank a shit-ton of bourbon last night. Enough to float a battleship.

My head hurts. But not as much as my heart.

We lost another lawyer over the weekend. Not someone who will receive facebook accolades and other public claims of friendship and statements that he shaped and changed lives and careers. Just a guy who did the best he could with what he had. Every day. And he did very, very well to be the best person he could be. 
Richard Seavey was a profoundly private person. In his 49 years, he walked through more than his share of trials and tribulations, mostly asking for no help, leaning on no one. 

Richard was a fantastic lawyer. He could try a case. He could "litigate" a case. He could mediate and settle a case. He was nuanced. He bent but never broke. The blustery Miami lawyer never scared him. To the contrary, he found humor in it, studying it like a science project. Richard never got too high or too low. He was good at lawyering, but you got the f…

First Carnival Triumph Lawsuit on File!

It was filed in the SD FL (of course) and is pending before Judge Graham.

Check it out here.

The lawyer on the pleading is Marcus R. Spagnoletti.