Anderson v. TACI Investments, Inc. et al

Filing 35

RULING: Considering the 31 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Plaintiff shall submit a form of judgment after having obtained approval as to the form from opposing counsel within 5 days. Once the judgment is entered into the record , this action shall be dismissed and all pending motions will be moot. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 10/31/2016. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
YANA ANDERSON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-126-JJB-EWD
TACI INVESTMENTS, INC., ET AL.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction (Doc. 31) brought by the Defendants, (collectively referred to as “TACI”). The
Plaintiff, Yana Anderson (“Anderson”), filed an Opposition (Doc. 33), and the Defendants filed a
Reply Brief (Doc. 34). Oral argument is unnecessary.
I.

BACKGROUND1
Anderson was an employee at a Kentucky Fried Chicken store operated by TACI. She

worked for TACI for three weeks. She sued TACI for overtime pay and liquidated damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). On June 9, 2016, and pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, TACI tendered an offer of judgment in the amount of $325 to Anderson.
The offer of judgment further stated that TACI would pay the costs allowed by the FLSA,
including reasonable attorney fees to be agreed upon by the parties or by this Court. On June 24,
2016, Anderson accepted the offer of judgment and filed notice of the acceptance (Doc. 22).
Rule 68 states: “If, within 14 days after being served, the opposing party serves written
notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance plus proof
of service. The clerk must then enter judgment.”2 Although more than four months have passed

1
2

All facts are taken from Defs.’ Supp. Mem, Doc. 31-1.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 68.

1

since Anderson filed her acceptance, the Clerk of Court has not yet entered judgment in favor of
Anderson as required by Rule 68.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s FLSA claims are moot in light of their offer of judgment
which provided Plaintiff with the maximum relief she is entitled to under the FLSA. Defendants
argue that this Court must dismiss the case because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff
does not dispute that the offer of judgment provided her with full relief. However, she argues that
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is premature and that the case should not be dismissed until the
Clerk is directed to enter judgment as required by Rule 68.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss a case

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Unlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, when considering a Rule
12(b)(1) motion, the court is free to weigh evidence and consider facts outside of the complaint.3
A court may render a jurisdictional decision based on the complaint alone, the complaint
supplemented by undisputed facts, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts and the
court’s resolution of those disputed facts.4
III.

DISCUSSION
This Motion calls upon the Court to determine whether an acceptance of an offer of

judgment moots a case such that the Court is divested of its power to enter that very judgment. If
counsel had contacted chambers, this Motion could have been disposed of summarily.
Defendants’ hyper-technical jurisdictional argument would render Rule 68 meaningless.
Rule 68 states: “If, within 14 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice

3
4

Robinson v. TCI/US West Communications, 117 F.3d 900, 904 (5th Cir. 1997).
Id.

2

accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance plus proof of
service. The clerk must then enter judgment.”5 Taken to its logical end, the Defendants’ argument
seems to imply that a court can never enter judgment on an accepted offer because the case is moot
at the moment of acceptance by a plaintiff and a court is powerless to enter judgment after that
moment.6 The Court is not willing to adopt a position that would contradict the clear mandate of
Rule 68.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, counsel for Plaintiff shall submit a form of judgment after

having obtained approval as to the form from opposing counsel within 5 days. Once the
undersigned signs the judgment and it is entered into the record by the clerk’s office, this action
shall be dismissed and all pending motions (including Doc. 31) will be moot.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 31, 2016.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. The Court also notes that courts “generally [have] no discretion whether or not to enter the
judgment. A rule 68 offer of judgment is usually considered self-executing.” Ramming v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co.,
390 F.3d 366, 370 (5th Cir. 2004).
6
In their Reply Brief (Doc. 34), Defendants cite Genesis Healthcare Corp v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013) for the
proposition that an unaccepted offer of judgment moots a case, and that in such a case, there is obviously no entry of
judgment. They further argue that “[c]ommon sense dictates that, if an unaccepted offer of judgment can moot a case,
then an accepted offer of judgment can moot a case without the entry of judgment by the clerk.” Genesis Healthcare
does not stand for the proposition that an unaccepted offer of judgment moots a case; in that case the majority refused
to decide that issue. In fact, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that the opposite is true—“an unaccepted settlement
offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case.” Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).
For this reason, the Court does not find Genesis helpful in resolving the question before the Court.
5

3