Consumer Finance Litigation n Page 2 individual claim. Further, the defendant argued that because Gomez’s individual claim was moot, the putative class’ claims were also moot. The district court denied the motion and the Ninth Circuit agreed that the case remained live. Supreme Court Decision In affirming the Ninth Circuit’s holding, Justice Ginsberg writing for the majority held that Gomez’s complaint was not “effaced by Campbell’s unaccepted offer to satisfy his individual claim.” Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to “cases” and “controversies.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that an “actual controversy” must exist at all stages of the litigation. If at any time an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a “personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit,” the action must be dismissed as moot.

But “as long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, that case is not moot.”2 Relying on and adopting Justice Kagan’s dissent opinion in Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S.

Ct. 1523 (U.S. 2013), a case in which the Supreme Court chose not to take an affirmative position on the question of mootness, the majority now held that when a plaintiff rejects a settlement offer, regardless of how good the terms are, the interest in the lawsuit remains as it was before the offer. The majority relied upon tenets of contract law, finding that a Rule 68 Offer is no different than any other contract offer.

Once rejected, the settlement offer “had no continuing efficacy.” Thus, the parties remained adverse and had an actual controversy in the litigation. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the dissent, stressed that the holding of the majority is limited to the facts of this case and only applies to an offer for complete relief, not when there is payment of complete relief, i.e., if the defendant had actually paid the sums offered. The majority agreed that its opinion did not address the situation where “a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff’s individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.” Conclusion While the Gomez decision attempts to resolve the split among the circuits and holds that an unaccepted Rule 68 Offer and unaccepted settlement offer neither moots an individual or class claim, there may still be an opportunity for early litigation payments to plaintiffs to moot class actions. As Chief Justice Roberts said, “This court leaves that question for another day – assuming there are other plaintiffs out there who, like Gomez, won’t take ‘yes’ for an answer.” Mr.

Streibich would like to thank Jonathan M. Robbin and Adam M. Swanson for their assistance in developing this alert. 1.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-857_8njq.pdf 2.  he Supreme Court also held that a federal contractor acting on the Navy’s T behalf (Campbell) does not entitle the federal contractor to immunity from suit for a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. For more information, please contact Wayne Streibich 215.569.5776 | WStreibich@BlankRome.com Francis X. Crowley 215.569.5627 | Crowley@BlankRome.com Laura E. Vendzules 215.569.5307 | LVendzules@BlankRome.com Edward W.

Chang 215.569.5342 | EChang@BlankRome.com Jonathan M. Robbin 212.885.5196 | JRobbin@BlankRome.com Adam M. Swanson 212.885.5568 | ASwanson@BlankRome.com www.blankrome.com .