Commentators have questioned whether, after the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013), a defendant could, by making a settlement offer or offer of judgment on a named plaintiff’s claim, render the case moot and prevent the certification of a class.  The Seventh Circuit has now addressed that question, although only in part, and in the context of a case with an unusual procedural history.  The Seventh Circuit reversed a trial court’s dismissal on mootness grounds, but appeared to retain its existing rule that a settlement offer or offer of judgment can potentially render a case moot if the offer is made before a motion for class certification is filed. 

In McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Nos. 12-3504, 13-2030, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4592 (7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2014), the district court initially dismissed the class claims on substantive grounds and later denied reconsideration.  Its ruling on reconsideration, however, granted the plaintiff leave to amend to allege narrower class claims.  Shortly after that ruling, the defendant made a settlement offer on the plaintiff’s individual claims, which was rejected.  The district court found that the offer was for complete relief, rendered the case moot, and dismissed the case.  The Seventh Circuit reversed.

In Genesis Healthcare, the named plaintiff sought to bring a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Supreme Court assumed, without deciding (because the issue had not been challenged below, or raised in a cross-petition for certiorari), that the named plaintiff’s individual claim had been mooted by an offer of judgment on her individual claims.  The Supreme Court then held that the plaintiff, whose individual claim was moot, could not seek collective action treatment (this is roughly similar to an opt-in class action).  In reaching this result, the Court distinguished several of its previous precedents on mootness in class actions, including a case that had held that a named plaintiff could still pursue an appeal of the denial of class certification after the plaintiff’s own claim had become moot.

In McMahon, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged, and did not revisit, its pre-Genesis Healthcare precedent under which an unaccepted offer of judgment made before a motion for class certification is filed can render a named plaintiff’s claim moot.  This effectively requires a named plaintiff to file a motion for class certification together with the complaint.  (The court noted that some other circuits have disagreed on this point, and found it unnecessary to revisit the issue.) 

On the facts of McMahon, the court applied by analogy the Supreme Court’s prior precedent in the context of mootness after a denial of certification.  The court reasoned that: “Had McMahon tried to appeal from the original denial of class certification, even assuming [defendant’s] offer was comprehensive enough to moot his case, he would have been in exactly the same position as the Roper plaintiff.  We conclude, therefore, that McMahon’s decision to reject [defendant’s] settlement offer did not moot his interest in the case for purposes of his ability to serve as a class representative.”  Id. at *22.

The court did not address the more critical question of whether the majority’s reasoning in Genesis Healthcare means that an offer of judgment or settlement offer for full relief on a named plaintiff’s claim renders a case moot.  The following excerpt from Genesis Healthcare, for example, potentially can be used by defendants to make an argument that there is no exception to mootness applicable in class actions prior to certification of a class:

Nor can a defendant’s attempt to obtain settlement [on the named plaintiff’s claim] insulate such a claim from review, for a full settlement offer addresses plaintiff’s alleged harm by making the plaintiff whole. While settlement may have the collateral effect of foreclosing unjoined claimants from having their rights vindicated in respondent’s suit, such putative plaintiffs remain free to vindicate their rights in their own suits. They are no less able to have their claims settled or adjudicated following respondent’s suit than if her suit had never been filed at all.

Genesis Healthcare, 133 S. Ct. at 1531.

Tags: Genesis Healthcare, Seventh Circuit
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Wystan Ackerman Wystan Ackerman

Wystan Ackerman is a partner in Robinson+Cole’s Insurance + Reinsurance Group and handles a diverse range of property insurance litigation, including large business interruption cases, class actions, other complex litigation, and appeals. He also has substantial experience representing insurance companies in putative class…

Wystan Ackerman is a partner in Robinson+Cole’s Insurance + Reinsurance Group and handles a diverse range of property insurance litigation, including large business interruption cases, class actions, other complex litigation, and appeals. He also has substantial experience representing insurance companies in putative class actions involving homeowners’ insurance coverage and market conduct/claim-handling practices. He has been prominently involved in high-profile property insurance litigation concerning the September 11th catastrophe and Hurricane Katrina, and Chinese-made drywall. Based in the insurance capital of Hartford, Connecticut, Wystan writes the blog Insurance Class Actions Insider, which was selected by Lexis Nexis as a top insurance blog for 2011.

Wystan grew up in Deep River, Connecticut, a small town on the west side of the Connecticut River in the south central part of the state. He always had strong interests in history, politics and baseball and his heroes growing up were Abraham Lincoln and Wade Boggs (at that time the third baseman for the Boston Red Sox). Wystan says it was his early fascination with Lincoln that drove him to practice law. As a high school senior, he was one of Connecticut’s two delegates to the U.S. Senate Youth Program, which further solidified his interest in law and government. He went on to Bowdoin College, where he wrote for the Bowdoin Orient and majored in government. After Bowdoin, he went on to Columbia Law School. He also interned in the chambers of then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Second Circuit. Wystan graduated from Columbia in 2001, then worked at Skadden Arps in Boston before returning to Connecticut and joining Robinson+Cole.

When Wystan’s not at his desk, flying around the country trying to save insurance companies from the plaintiffs’ bar, or attending a conference on class actions or insurance litigation he often can be found watching “Dora the Explorer” or reading or playing whiffleball with his young daughter, helping his wife with her business, Option Realty, reading a book about history or politics, or watching the Boston Red Sox.

Read Wystan’s rc.com bio.

Read more about Wystan Ackerman
Show more Show less
Related Posts
Ninth Circuit Reiterates That Individualized Defenses Matter When Deciding Class Certification
March 20, 2023
Intra-Class Conflict Dooms Auto Insurance Class Action in Fifth Circuit
February 28, 2022
Recent First Circuit Opinion Addresses Strategies for Litigating Predominance in Class Action Litigation
September 22, 2021