TCPA Blog contributors Mike Daly, Matt Fedor and Andy Van Houter authored “An Important Class Issue the High Court Left Unresolved” for Law360.

In its ruling in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the Supreme Court found that an unaccepted offer of judgment made under Federal Rule 68 does not moot a plaintiff’s claim. But the Court expressly left open the possibility that actually tendering funds to an individual plaintiff could moot the claims. Two circuit courts, however, have recently found that a tender cannot moot the claims, with rulings in Fulton Dental LLC. v. Bisco Inc. and Radha Geismann, M.D. PC v. ZocDoc Inc.

The question may especially impact class action litigation, including TCPA actions, given the staggering aggregated damages potentially recoverable in such actions. TCPA cases can depend upon the court’s interpretation of the validity of a plaintiff’s Article III standing and whether or not the tendering the individual plaintiff’s maximum recovery ends the controversy.

In this article, Mike, Matt and Andy outline the decisions, the courts’ logic in their findings, how the decisions run afoul of the Rules Enabling Act and the Constitution, and what this might mean for class action defendants and plaintiffs going forward.

Read “An Important Class Issue the High Court Left Unresolved.”

The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.