United States: The Supreme Court Rules That An Unaccepted Offer Of Judgment Cannot Moot A Case, But What About Payment Of Complete Relief?

Last Updated: February 5 2016
Article by Martha Keon and Joshua B. Waxman

A divided U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez1 that an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment is a legal nullity that cannot moot a case. However, the Court left open the possibility that payment of complete relief may suffice.

Factual Background and District Court Proceedings

The U.S. Navy contracted with Campbell to develop a multi-media recruiting campaign that included sending text messages to young adults if they "opted in" to receiving such marketing solicitations. Campbell used a subcontractor to identify the cell phone numbers of such individuals. The subcontractor sent a text message to Jose Gomez ("the plaintiff") encouraging him to explore opportunities in the Navy. The plaintiff filed a nationwide class action against Campbell in federal court in Los Angeles claiming that he had not consented to receiving such solicitations and alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").2The plaintiff sought treble damages for a willful and knowing violation, an injunction against Campbell's involvement in unsolicited messaging, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Early in the case Campbell made a settlement offer and a Rule 68 offer of judgment to the plaintiff, both offering $1,503 per message (three times the maximum statutory damages of $500) plus costs, and a stipulated injunction. Attorneys' fees were not recoverable by statute. The plaintiff did not accept the settlement offer or the offer of judgment, which automatically lapsed under Rule 68.Campbell then moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the unaccepted offers provided the plaintiff with complete relief and there was no longer a "case or controversy."In opposition, the plaintiff argued that the Rule 68 offer was an improper attempt to pick off his claim before he had the opportunity to move for class certification.

The district court observed that there was no dispute that the settlement offer and offer of judgment would have fully satisfied the plaintiff's individual claims.3In the absence of Ninth Circuit authority on point, the district court followed the Third, Fifth and Tenth Circuits and held that the Rule 68 offer could not moot the putative class action prior to class certification, applying the "relation-back doctrine. "This doctrine provides that class claims relate back to the date of the filing of the complaint for the purposes of a subsequent motion for class certification if the named plaintiff's claims are found to be moot.4The district court reasoned that otherwise the defendant could "make an end-run around a class action simply by virtue of a facile procedural 'gotcha,' i.e., the conveyance of a Rule 68 offer of judgment to 'pick off' the named plaintiff prior to the filing of a class certification motion."5Without further analysis, the district court also held that the unaccepted settlement offer did not moot the plaintiff's claim and denied the motion to dismiss.6

Ninth Circuit Decision

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, focusing on the fact that the plaintiff had not accepted the Rule 68 offer or the settlement offer. As a result, the court held that the offers were legal nullities that could not moot the plaintiff's claim.7

The Ninth Circuit also ruled that the relation-back doctrine prevented the plaintiff's class claims from being rendered moot. In so ruling, it distinguished the Supreme Court's decision not to apply the relation-back doctrine in Genesis HealthCare Corp.,8 as that the case involved a FLSA collective action, not a Rule 23 class action.Class certification under Rule 23 creates a class with an independent legal status, and relating class certification back to the date the complaint was filed would save the class claims from being moot. In contrast, in a FLSA collective action, relating conditional certification back to the date the complaint was filed would not save any claims from being moot because conditional certification does not create a class, but only results in the issuance of notice to putative collective action members who may later opt in as plaintiffs.9

A Majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Affirmed the Ninth Circuit, Holding That an Unaccepted Settlement Offer or Offer of Judgment Cannot Moot a Case

The United States Supreme Court granted review to address the issue not reached in the Supreme Court's April 2013 decision in Genesis HealthCare – whether an unaccepted offer to satisfy the named plaintiff's individual claim is sufficient to render a case moot when the complaint seeks relief on behalf of the plaintiff and a class of similarly situated individuals. Justice Thomas, writing for the majority in Genesis HealthCare, declined to reach this issue because the plaintiff in that case failed to preserve it in the lower courts. As a result, the Genesis HealthCare majority assumed, without deciding, that an unaccepted offer which provides complete relief moots a plaintiff's claim, and then held that the FLSA collective action was no longer justiciable based on the collective action allegations alone. Justice Kagan dissented in that case (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor), arguing the Court should have reached and resolved the issue by ruling that an unaccepted offer of judgment is a legal nullity that cannot moot a case.10

With the question squarely presented in this case, Justice Ginsburg, joined by the Genesis HealthCare dissenters and Justice Kennedy, affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that an unaccepted offer to satisfy the named plaintiff's individual claims cannot render the individual or class claims moot. The majority reasoned that a case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief to the prevailing party. When a plaintiff rejects a settlement offer or a Rule 68 offer of judgment, the offer becomes a legal nullity under basic contract law principles and the case proceeds as if it were never made. The majority observed that this was consistent with Rule 68 which expressly provides that a Rule 68 offer is deemed withdrawn if not accepted within 14 days of service, with the only sanction being payment of the offeree's costs if the unaccepted offer is more favorable than the ultimate judgment.

The Court majority distinguished three railroad tax cases relied on by Campbell, noting that they were found moot because the railroads paid the full amount demanded into a bank account in the plaintiffs' names pursuant to a statute that extinguished the tax obligation upon such a payment. The majority also distinguished several declaratory and/or injunctive relief cases held moot after the underlying property was returned, cash forfeited, and trademark infringement dispute resolved by a covenant not to sue by the trademark owner, on the ground that, in contrast, after the offers to the plaintiff to settle his claim for damages for past harm expired in this case, he was left with nothing. The Court declined to decide whether the result would have been different if Campbell deposited the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff and the court entered judgment in that amount.

Justice Thomas (who authored the majority's ruling in Genesis HealthCare) concurred in the judgment, although he disagreed with the reliance on contract law principles. In his view, whether there is a case or controversy derives from the traditional limitations on the power of common law courts. Historically, according to the common law of tenders (the precursor to Rule 68), a mere offer to settle a case would not extinguish it. Rather, a defendant had to offer to pay the entire claim and produce the sum in an unconditional manner. In the state and federal courts, such a tender was considered an admission of liability, so a defendant could not deny liability and effectuate a tender. Here, because Campbell offered to pay the plaintiff's claim but took no further steps to make payment, the unaccepted offer did not extinguish the plaintiff's claim. Justice Thomas declined to speculate whether all of the common law formalities (i.e. an admission of liability) had to be followed to moot a case.

In the View of the Dissenters, Because There Was No Dispute That Campbell Would Pay the Amount Offered, the Case Was Moot

Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Scalia and Alito. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Campbell offered to pay the plaintiff the maximum amount recoverable, but the plaintiff wanted more – a federal court to say he is right. In Chief Justice Roberts' view, federal courts exist to resolve real disputes – cases or controversies – not to rule on entitlement to relief that has already been offered. The Chief Justice asserted that the plaintiff must have a personal stake, which is shown by standing to sue – a personal injury allegedly due to the defendant's unlawful conduct that is likely to be redressed by the requested relief.Here, Campbell agreed to redress the injury fully without forcing the plaintiff to litigate. As a result, the plaintiff could not show an injury in need of redress by the court and there was no need for the court to expound and interpret the law and no case or controversy under Article III. Nor did the plaintiff have standing based on his class action allegations because a plaintiff does not have standing to seek relief based solely on the injuries of others.

While Chief Justice Roberts conceded that Rule 68 by its terms does not extinguish cases upon a plaintiff's failure to accept an offer of complete relief, he noted that here there was also a settlement offer. In his view, whether the settlement offer was a legal nullity under contract law principles is irrelevant to the "case or controversy" analysis. He explained that the Court's precedents have not required a plaintiff's acceptance or the defendant's admission of liability.Chief Justice Roberts further reasoned that the fact that Campbell had not paid up should not change the analysis. There was no evidence that it could not pay, and had there been any such evidence, the issue could be addressed by Campbell's depositing a certified check with the trial court. Chief Justice Roberts observed that the case was limited to its facts insofar as the majority did not reach the issue of whether payment of complete relief would moot a case.

Justice Alito wrote separately to clarify that he dissented because there was no real dispute that Campbell would pay the plaintiff what was offered. If there had been such a dispute, then the case would not have been moot. Justice Alito noted that a defendant could make clear that it will pay over the money by handing the plaintiff a certified check or depositing the requisite funds in a bank account in the plaintiff's name. The defendant could also deposit the money with a district court or other intermediary on the condition that the payment be released after the court dismisses the case as moot.

Practical Guidance

The majority, concurring and dissenting opinions in Campbell suggest that a defendant interested in providing complete relief to extinguish a plaintiff's case in either a single plaintiff or class or collective action should consider the following:

1. Make a settlement offer in addition to a Rule 68 offer. The Campbell majority noted that the only penalty for rejecting a Rule 68 offer that provides for complete relief is the possibility of paying the other side's costs if the offer exceeds the ultimate judgment. Chief Justice Roberts conceded this point, but pointed to the fact that a settlement offer had also been made.

2. Make sure that the settlement offer and Rule 68 offer provide complete relief. This is essential to mooting a claim.Thought must be given to how to frame the relief where attorneys' fees are recoverable by statute. In some jurisdictions, such as the District of Maryland, if plaintiffs wish to recover attorneys' fees in the litigation, they are required to provide quarterly statements to defendants listing their fees incurred to date. As a result, since defendants will have precise information from plaintiffs' counsel about their amount of fees, it will be easier for defendants to make a full payment that includes attorneys' fees in those jurisdictions.

3. Pay the relief by certified check payable to the plaintiff and deposit it with the Court or pay it to the plaintiff, or deposit the funds in an account payable to the plaintiff. The majority reasoned that the plaintiff was left with nothing after rejecting the offers, and distinguished the cases cited by the dissent as involving situations in which full relief was in fact provided. The concurring and dissenting opinions noted that the case may have come out differently had Campbell taken further steps to pay the money to the plaintiff.

4. Consider the pros and cons of asking the Court to enter judgment on the amount. The majority noted that it need not decide whether the result would be different had Campbell paid the money into court and the court entered judgment on that amount. Justice Alito's dissent stated that he believes that the Court's prior precedents established that the entry of a judgment is not required under those circumstances.

5. Consider the pros and cons of making an admission of liability. This requires careful analysis, especially where class and collective action claims have been or may be asserted. The majority noted that Campbell continued to deny liability in its stipulated injunction, further underscoring that there remained a case or controversy. Justice Thomas' concurrence declined to reach the issue of whether an admission of liability was necessary to moot a claim. The dissent noted that an admission of liability is unnecessary if the plaintiff is provided with complete relief.

6. If a defendant successfully moots a named plaintiff's individual claim by paying complete relief, what is the result for the alleged class claims? The majority suggested that the relation-back doctrine could be applied to salvage the class claims (Genesis HealthCare rejected the application of the relation-back doctrine in collective actions).The dissenters would decline to allow a named plaintiff to have standing based on the injuries of others, to share attorneys' fees among class members or to achieve a class incentive award in addition to damages for the individual claim.


1 577 U.S. ____ (2016).

2 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

3 Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 805 F. Supp.2d 923, 927 (C.D. Cal. 2011).

4 The Court relied on Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 347-48 (3d Cir. 2004); Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc., 639 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2011); Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913, 920 (5th Cir. 2008), and rejected the approach of the Seventh Circuit. Holstein v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1145, 1147 (7th Cir. 1994).

5 805 F. Supp.2d at 930.

6 Thereafter, Campbell won dismissal of the case on summary judgment on the ground that as a government contractor, it was immune from liability under the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed this holding, and the Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, holding that because Campbell had not followed the government's instructions and sending the message to the plaintiff violated federal law, Campbell's derivative sovereign immunity defense failed.

7 The Ninth Circuit relied on its then recent decision in Diaz v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp., 732 F.3d 948, 950 (9th Cir. 2013) (adopting Justice Kagan's dissent in Genesis HealthCare Corporation v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523; 185 L.Ed. 2d 636; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 3157 (2013)).

8 The Ninth Circuit relied on its decision in Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc. 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011), which was issued four months after the district court decision in Campbell-Ewald. Pitts applied the relation-back doctrine to preserve jurisdiction over a class claim for damages which, while not inherently transitory in nature, was found to be acutely susceptible to being rendered moot by a Rule 68 offer.

9 68 F.3d at 875-76 (citing Genesis HealthCare Corp., 133 S.Ct. at 1529).

10 By the time of the decision in Campbell, the First, Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits had held that an unaccepted offer cannot moot a plaintiff's claim, with all of the decisions decided after Genesis HealthCare adopting the Kagan dissent. Bais Yaakov v. Act, Inc., 798 F.3d 46, 52 (1st Cir. 2015); Hooks v. Landmark Indus., Inc., 797 F.3d 309, 315 (5th Cir. 2015); Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015); Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, 786 F.3d 195, 200 (2d Cir. 2015); Stein v. Buccaneers Ltd. Partnership, 772 F.3d 698, 703 (11th Cir. 2014). The Third, Fourth and Sixth Circuits held that an unaccepted offer can moot a plaintiff's claim. Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., 676 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir. 2012); O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enterprises, Inc., 575 F.3d 567, 574-75 (6th Cir. 2009); Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 340 (3d Cir. 2004).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Martha Keon
Joshua B. Waxman
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Carlton Fields
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Carlton Fields
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions