Filed: Jan. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 27, 2016
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RULE 23 CLASS CERTIFICATION LINDA V. PARKER , District Judge . This putative class action asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. 227. Timothy Sheridan is the only named Plaintiff. On the same date that he initiated this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification." (ECF No. 2.) In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to reserve ruling on his motion until he ha
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RULE 23 CLASS CERTIFICATION LINDA V. PARKER , District Judge . This putative class action asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. 227. Timothy Sheridan is the only named Plaintiff. On the same date that he initiated this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification." (ECF No. 2.) In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to reserve ruling on his motion until he has..
More
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RULE 23 CLASS CERTIFICATION
LINDA V. PARKER, District Judge.
This putative class action asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227. Timothy Sheridan is the only named Plaintiff. On the same date that he initiated this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification." (ECF No. 2.) In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to reserve ruling on his motion until he has conducted discovery on whether class certification is appropriate. The practice of filing premature motions for class certification in TCPA cases has proliferated in this District as a means to avoid the named plaintiff's claim possibly being rendered moot by the defendant's offer of judgment.1 However, with the Supreme Court's January 20, 2016 decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), there no longer is a need for plaintiffs to file premature motions for class certification.
In Gomez, the Court addressed the issue of whether an unaccepted offer to satisfy the named plaintiff's individual claim renders a case moot when the complaint seeks relief on behalf of the plaintiff and a class of similarly situated persons. No. 14-857, slip op. at 1 (S. Ct. Jan. 20, 2016). The Circuit Courts of Appeals disagreed on the answer to this question, with the Sixth Circuit holding that an unaccepted offer can moot a plaintiff's claim. See id. at 5-6; see also O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enter., Inc., 575 F.3d 567, 574-75 (6th Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court held in Gomez "that an unaccepted settlement offer has no force.. . . With the offer off the table, and the defendant's continuing denial of liability, adversity between the parties persists." Gomez, No. 14-857, slip op. at 1. Thus the case is not rendered moot.
In short, there no longer is a reason for Plaintiff to file a motion for certification which he is not able to support at this time. The motion is premature.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification (ECF No. 2) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
