Hooks v. Landmark Indus., Inc.

Decision Date12 August 2015
Docket NumberNo. 14–20496.,14–20496.
Citation797 F.3d 309
PartiesDavid HOOKS, Plaintiff–Appellant v. LANDMARK INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, doing business as Timewise Food Stores, Defendant–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Adina Hyman Rosenbaum (argued), Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, Ronald Bruce Carlson, Esq., Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, L.L.P., Pittsburgh, PA, Emil Lippe, Jr., Lippe & Associates, Dallas, TX, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Matthew G. Reeves, Trial Attorney (argued), Michael Cole Mackey, Locke Lord, L.L.P., Joe Steven Stewart, Christopher Andrew Verducci, Houston, TX, DefendantAppellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, HAYNES, Circuit Judge, and BROWN, District Judge.*

Opinion

CARL E. STEWART, Chief Judge:

This is an appeal of the district court's dismissal of a named-plaintiff's claim and putative class action under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on mootness grounds. The district court determined that because the DefendantAppellee made an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 to the named plaintiff, even though the offer was not accepted, this mooted the individual's claim. The district court determined that because a motion for class certification was not filed before the offer, the class action was mooted as well. Because we hold that an unaccepted offer of judgment cannot moot a named-plaintiff's claim in a putative class action, we REVERSE and REMAND.

I

PlaintiffAppellant David Hooks (Hooks) made one withdrawal from his checking account at an automated teller machine (ATM) operated by DefendantAppellee Landmark Industries, Inc. (Landmark) on November 12, 2011. Landmark charged Hooks $2.95 for the withdrawal but did not post notice on or at the ATM to inform customers that a fee would be charged for its use. Hooks sued Landmark in the Southern District of Texas on January 18, 2012, seeking statutory damages for alleged violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq., and filed his first amended complaint on March 12, 2012. Landmark answered on March 26, 2012. On May 4, 2012, the court held a status conference and set September 7, 2012, as the deadline to file a motion for class certification.

Shortly thereafter, on June 18, 2012, Landmark tendered an offer of judgment to Hooks under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 (Rule 68 ). Under this offer, Landmark proposed to settle the statutory damage claim for $1,000, the maximum allowable statutory damages for his individual claim.See 15 U.S.C. § 1693(a)(2)(A). Landmark also offered to “pay costs accrued and reasonable and necessary attorney fees, through the date of acceptance of the offer, as agreed by the parties, or to be determined by the court if agreement cannot be reached.” The deadline to accept under the offer was 15 days after service.1 Hooks did not accept the offer and instead filed a motion to strike the offer of judgment on June 28, 2012. The district court denied the motion to strike on September 28, 2012.

On September 7, 2012, before the district court denied the motion to strike, Hooks sought an extension of the deadline to file a motion for class certification. On October 5, 2012, the court granted the extension and Hooks filed his motion for class certification. That same day, Landmark filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The case was referred to the magistrate judge, who recommended the motion for class certification be granted and the motion to dismiss be denied as moot. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, certifying the class and denying the motion to dismiss on July 30, 2013.2 On March 25, 2014, Landmark filed a second motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Hooks's individual claim and the class action suit were mooted by the unaccepted Rule 68 offer. The district court granted the motion to dismiss and vacated its prior order. Hooks appealed.

II

A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir.1998) (citation omitted). “When reviewing a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. Serv. Corp. Intern., 695 F.3d 330, 336 (5th Cir.2012) (citation omitted).

As a preliminary matter, Hooks argues that the Rule 68 offer was not a complete offer of judgment because it only included reasonable attorney fees accrued through the date of the offer. Hooks urges that a complete offer should include post-offer fees—for example, those incurred litigating the “reasonableness” of already-accrued fees if the parties should fail to reach an agreement. Landmark responds that the offer is not required to include these fees in order to provide complete relief.3

In a successful case to enforce EFTA liability, a violator of the EFTA is liable for “the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court.” 15 U.S.C. § 1693m(a)(3). Rule 68 states that “a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 68(a). “An incomplete offer of judgment—that is, one that does not offer to meet the plaintiff's full demand for relief—does not render the plaintiff's claims moot.” Payne v. Progressive Fin. Servs., Inc., 748 F.3d 605, 607 (5th Cir.2014). If an incomplete offer is made, “the plaintiff maintains a personal stake in the outcome of the action, the court is capable of granting effectual relief outside the terms of the offer, and a live controversy remains.” Id.

Our court has not ruled on the issue of whether an offer of judgment is complete when it includes cost incurred up to the offer date but not thereafter. Other courts have reached differing conclusions as to what fees must be included in order for an offer to be complete in similar scenarios.4

We do not express an opinion about whether an offer must include post-offer fees in order to provide complete relief.5 Were the offer incomplete, Hooks's individual claim was not mooted under Payne. As discussed below, were the offer complete, Hooks's individual claim—and thus the class claims—were not mooted by the unaccepted offer. Therefore, as the outcome of our decision does not hinge on the completeness of the offer, we do not determine whether Landmark's offer was complete by only offering costs “then accrued.”

III

We now turn to whether Landmark's Rule 68 offer, assuming it were complete, mooted Hooks's individual claim and the class action claims. Rule 68(a) states that if the opposing party accepts the offer in writing, and the offer and acceptance are filed with the court, [t]he clerk must then enter judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 68(a). Rule 68 also states that [a]n unaccepted offer is considered withdrawn.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 68(b). The doctrine of mootness requires that [t]he parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 478, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A plaintiff's claim is not moot [a]s long as [he has] a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation.” Chafin v. Chafin, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 1023, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (citation omitted). A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Knox v. Serv. Emps. Intern. Union, Local 1000, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 2287, 183 L.Ed.2d 281 (2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendant-induced mootness is viewed with caution because ‘there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation’ where ‘a defendant ... follows one adjudicated violation with others.’ Fontenot v. McCraw, 777 F.3d 741, 747 (5th Cir.2015) (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633, 634, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953) ).

The Supreme Court in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, declined to resolve a circuit split over “whether an unaccepted offer that fully satisfies a plaintiff's claim is sufficient to render the claim moot” when a Fair Labor Standards Act class has not been certified yet. ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1523, 1528–29, 185 L.Ed.2d 636 (2013).6 Rather, because the Court concluded that this issue had been waived by the parties, the Genesis Court merely assumed, without deciding, that the individual claim became moot after the Rule 68 offer of judgment. Id. at 1532. The Court ultimately held that the plaintiff had “no personal interest in representing putative, unnamed claimants, nor any other continuing interest that would preserve her suit from mootness,” based on the assumption that the unaccepted Rule 68 offer mooted the individual's claim. Id.

Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor declined to assume the mootness of the individual claim and, therefore, addressed the offer's effect on the named plaintiff's claim in dissent, stating that “an unaccepted offer of judgment cannot moot a case[,] ... however good the terms.” Id. at 1533 (Kagan, J., dissenting). Justice Kagan also noted that, generally, an unaccepted offer is a legal nullity and [n]othing in Rule 68 alters that basic principle; to the contrary, that rule specifies that [a]n unaccepted offer is considered withdrawn.’ Id. at 1534 (Kagan, J., dissenting) (citing Rule 68 ). Justice Kagan cautioned “the Third Circuit: Rethink your mootness-by-unaccepted-offer theory. And a note to all other courts of appeals: Don't try this at home.” Id. (Kagan,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • E.T. v. Morath
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • 10 Noviembre 2021
    ...1097 (2006). A plaintiff's failure to meet its burden, removes the court's "power to adjudicate the case." Hooks v. Landmark Indus., Inc. , 797 F.3d 309, 312 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison , 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) ). Sovereign Imm......
  • Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 2016
    ...federal courts of Article III jurisdiction. Compare Bais Yaakov v. ACT, Inc., 798 F.3d 46, 52 (C.A.1 2015) ; Hooks v. Landmark Industries, Inc., 797 F.3d 309, 315 (C.A.5 2015) ; Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (C.A.7 2015) ; Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, 786 F.3d 195, 200 (C.......
  • Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 2016
    ...courts of Article III jurisdiction. Compare Bais Yaakov v. ACT, Inc., 798 F.3d 46, 52 (C.A.1 2015) ; Hooks v. Landmark Industries, Inc., 797 F.3d 309, 315 (C.A.5 2015) ; Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (C.A.7 2015) ; Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, 786 F.3d 195, 200 (C.A.2 2015......
  • Friends of Lydia Ann Channel v. Lydia Ann Channel Moorings, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 24 Marzo 2020
    ...Plaintiff could not obtain effectual relief under the APA and the claim was barred by mootness. Id. (citing Hooks v. Landmark Indus., Inc., 797 F.3d 309, 313 (5th Cir. 2015)). Only Plaintiff's claims under the ESA remained pending on remand. Id. Following the Fifth Circuit opinion, Plaintif......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
1 books & journal articles
  • Resolution Without Trial
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases. Volume 1-2 Volume 2 - Practice
    • 1 Mayo 2023
    ...adopted Justice Kagan’s analysis. See Bais Yaakov v. ACT, Inc ., 798 F.3d 46, 51–52 (1st Cir. 2015); Hooks v. Landmark Industries, Inc ., 797 F.3d 309, 314–315 (5th Cir. 2015); Chapman v. First Index, Inc ., 796 F.3d 783, 786–787 (7th Cir. 2015); Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank , 786 F.3d 195, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT