Second Circuit Axes Defense Attempt to 'Pick Off' Lead Plaintiff With Damages Payment
The appeals court joins other circuits in striking down the procedure, writing that "deposit alone does not provide relief."
November 30, 2018 at 06:39 PM
5 minute read
A federal appeals court has struck down a procedural loophole increasingly used by defendants to dismiss a class action by paying the lead plaintiff's damages.
In a Tuesday opinion, a unanimous panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a 2017 Southern District of New York dismissal of a case against Zocdoc Inc., the company behind the popular site for booking online doctor appointments, after it made a $6,000 settlement offer that the lead plaintiff didn't accept.
The “deposit alone does not provide relief” to the plaintiff, wrote the Second Circuit, which concluded that therefore the lower court “must resolve the pending motion for class certification before entering judgment and declaring an action moot based solely on the relief provided to a plaintiff on an individual basis.” In the underlying case, lead plaintiff Dr. Radha Geismann alleged Zocdoc violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending her office two unsolicited faxes, seeking statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per violation and an injunction to stop sending the faxes.
“If the motion is granted, the class action may proceed. A conclusion otherwise would risk placing the defendant in control of a putative class action, effectively allowing the use of tactical procedural maneuvers to thwart class litigation at will,” the Second Circuit added.
The defense bar's use of the procedural tactic has led to a wave of attempts to “pick off” lead plaintiffs following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, which held that a defendant could not moot a class action by offering an unaccepted judgment to the lead plaintiff. However, Chief Justice John Roberts raised in his dissent the prospect that the outcome might be different if the defendant deposited the money into an account.
The Second Circuit decision, which drew amicus briefs from Public Citizen Inc. for the plaintiff and the credit and collections agencies group ACA International for the defendant, aligned with a 2017 decision by the Seventh Circuit in Fulton Dental v. Bisco. The holding found that a defendant's deposit of $3,600 into a court account that compensated the lead plaintiff in full did not moot the entire class action because it was an “unaccepted contract offer.”
Scott Nelson, an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group, said in an email that the Second Circuit's opinion “should definitively slam the door on the tactic. The decision is consistent with the consensus of circuits that have addressed the issue, including the decision last year in Fulton Dental. The lesson appears to be that the appellate courts are not willing to let defendants immunize themselves against class actions with these kinds of games.”
Glenn Hara of Anderson + Wanca in Rolling Meadows, Illinois, who represented plaintiff Geismann, declined to comment.
Blaine Kimrey, a shareholder at Vedder Price in Chicago, and an attorney for Zocdoc, did not respond to a request for comment.
In Campbell-Ewald, the defendant had made an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The 6-3 decision found that an “unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case.” The dissent by Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, wrote that the “majority's analysis may have come out differently if Campbell had deposited the offered funds with the district court.” Alito, in a separate opinion, even suggested defendants could hand a plaintiff a certified check or deposit the funds “in a bank account in the plaintiff's name.”
Taking a page from that dissent, Zocdoc on remand deposited $20,000 into the district court's registry to resolve Geismann's claims, and U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton of the Southern District of New York granted judgment again.
Zocdoc is the latest defendant to attempt such a move. Fulton Dental also was a class action brought under the TCPA. And, like Zocdoc, the defendant made its payment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67, which allows parties to deposit funds with the court.
The Seventh Circuit struck down the procedure and reiterated its holding in a subsequent ruling in Laurens v. Volvo Cars of North America LLC. The Ninth and Sixth circuits also have sided with plaintiffs in related cases.
The Second Circuit joins those circuits in its holding this week.
“Like the Seventh Circuit, we see no material difference between a plaintiff rejecting a tender of payment (pursuant to Rule 27) and an offer of payment (pursuant to Rule 68),” the panel wrote. “Indeed, other than their labels, once rejected, the two do not differ in any meaningful way: In each case, 'all that exists is an unaccepted contract offer and as the Supreme Court recognized, an unaccepted offer is not binding on the offeree.'”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllArtificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
9 minute readBig Law Sidelined as Asian IPOs in New York Are Dominated by Small Cap Listings
The Benefits of E-Filing for Affordable, Effortless and Equal Access to Justice
7 minute readA Primer on Using Third-Party Depositions To Prove Your Case at Trial
13 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Ex-Archegos CFO Gets 8-Year Prison Sentence for Fraud Scheme
- 2Judges Split Over Whether Indigent Prisoners Bringing Suit Must Each Pay Filing Fee
- 3Law Firms Report Wide Growth, Successful Billing Rate Increases and Less Merger Interest
- 4CLOs Face Mounting Pressure as Risks Mushroom and Job Duties Expand
- 5X Faces Intense Scrutiny as EU Investigation Races to Conclusion & Looming Court Battle
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250