Yesterday, the 11th Circuit held that a putative class representative’s claim is not mooted by an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment.  See Stein v. Buccaneers LP, No. 13-15417 (11th Cir. Dec. 1, 2014).

Just in time for the holidays, here’s a summary of the Rule 68 legal landscape in the 8th and 10th Circuits:

8th Circuit.  There’s no Eighth Circuit decision squarely on point.  The district courts have reached opposite conclusions:

  • Goans Acquisition, Inc. v. Merchant Solutions, LLC, 2013 WL 5408460 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 26, 2013) (following the 7th Circuit’s decision in Damasco)
  • March v. Medicredit, Inc., 2013 WL 6265070 (E.D. Mo. Dec 04, 2013) (finding that pre-certification offer does not moot a named plaintiff’s claim);
  • Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medtox Scientific, Inc., 2013 WL 3771397, at *2 (D. Minn. July 18, 2013) (same);
  • Jenkins v. General Collection Co., 246 F.R.D. 600, 602–03 (D. Neb. 2007) (same);
  • Liles v. Am. Corrective Counseling Servs., Inc., 201 F.R.D. 452, 455 (S.D. Iowa 2001) (same).

10th Circuit.  A Rule 68 offer won’t moot the claim of a named plaintiff who “timely” seeks class certification.  See Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc., 639 F.3d 1239, 1250 (10th Cir. 2011) (“[A] named plaintiff in a proposed class action for monetary relief may proceed to seek timely class certification where an unaccepted offer of judgment is tendered in satisfaction of the plaintiff’s individual claim before the court can reasonably be expected to rule on the class certification motion.”).