WALTERS v. DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 8 Motion to suspend the automatic briefing schedule on his motion for class certification (see Order for details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 1/28/2016. (SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JOSHUA WALTERS on behalf of plaintiff
and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC,
C&S ACQUISITION, INC. doing business as
C1 PROFESSIONAL TRAINING CENTER,
BRIAN K. ALSIP,
GARRETT J. LOWE, and
PYRAMID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-cv-00144-TWP-TAB

ORDER
Plaintiff Joshua Walters asks the Court to suspend the automatic briefing schedule on his
motion for class certification. In light of Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, 2016 WL
228345, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016), the Court finds it unnecessary, and denies Walters’ motion.
Particularly in consumer law cases, plaintiffs have commonly filed “placeholder”
motions for class certification concurrently with the complaint. See, e.g., Garcia v. J.C. Penney
Corp., Inc., No. 12-cv-3687, 2015 WL 1543921, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2015) (“the plaintiffs’
request for class certification remains pending as a placeholder”). Need for such placeholder
motions may be traced back to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), in
which the Seventh Circuit held that a plaintiff’s action becomes moot once the defendant makes
an offer of judgment, unless the plaintiff has moved for class certification, because there is no
longer a live controversy.

The necessity of placeholder motions ebbed last year when the Seventh Circuit overruled
Damasco in Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015). Since Chapman, courts
have vacated denials of motions for class certification because an offer of judgment no longer
automatically moots the plaintiff’s action. E.g., Webster v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 618 F.
App’x 864, 865 (7th Cir. 2015). Since Chapman, courts have also found that class issues may be
properly decided after discovery and briefing. E.g. Leiner v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Companies, Inc., No. 15-cv-5876, 2016 WL 128098, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2016).
On January 20, the Supreme Court handed down Campbell-Ewald, which fortified
Chapman and resolved the issue of mootness among the circuits. The Court held “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.” Campbell-Ewald, 2016
WL 228345, at *1.
Walters’ motion to suspend the automatic briefing schedule was filed the day before the
Supreme Court handed down Campbell-Ewald. Walters indicates that his motion for class
certification was filed to avoid “any other defenses” described in Chapman, but he only points to
mootness. [Filing No. 8, at ECF p. 1.] In light of Campbell-Ewald’s holding on mootness,
suspending briefing on Walters’ motion for class certification is unnecessary. Either Walters
should proceed with the automatic briefing schedule or withdraw his motion for class
certification, reserving the ability to re-file it at a later time. If Defendants respond to Walters’
complaint with an offer of judgment, Walters may choose not to accept it and retain his action.
If Walters wishes to engage in discovery and briefing first, he may withdraw the motion and
decide whether to move for class certification at a later time.

2

In sum, Walters’ concern that Defendants may moot his action is alleviated by CampbellEwald, so Walters’ motion to suspend briefing [Filing No. 8] is denied.1
Date: 1/28/2016

_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Daniel A. Edelman
EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
[e-mail]
Cassandra P. Miller
EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER GOODWIN
[e-mail]
James O. Latturner
EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER GOODWIN
[e-mail]
Michelle Anne Alyea
EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER GOODWIN
[e-mail]
Cathleen Maria Combs
EDLEMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
[e-mail]

1

Campbell-Ewald leaves open the possibility, however remote, that a defendant who actually
tenders payment might be able to obtain dismissal on mootness grounds. However, Walters’
motion does not trigger this scenario.
3