Vinas v. Chase Receivables, Inc.

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 3/27/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
MARIA VINAS
on Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated

:
:

v.

:

CHASE RECEIVABLES, INC.

Civil Action No. DKC 14-3270

:
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently
under

the

pending

Fair

Debt

in

this

putative

Collection

class

Practices

Act

action

brought

(“FDCPA”)

Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
No. 10).
hearing

Plaintiff opposed the motion.
is

deemed

necessary.

Local

(ECF

(ECF No. 13).

Rule

105.6.

is

No

For

the

following reasons, the motion will be denied.
Plaintiff

filed

her

complaint

on

October

20,

2014,

contending that the processing or convenience fee for payment of
debts online violates the FDCPA.

She sued on her own behalf as

well as on behalf putative class members:
Class 1. All persons from whom Defendant
attempted to collect a convenience fee
within one year prior to the filing of the
complaint where such fee was not authorized
by the agreement creating the debt or by
law.
Class 2. All persons from whom Defendant
collected a convenience fee within one year
prior to the filing of the complaint where
such fee was not authorized by the agreement
creating the debt or by law.

Instead of answering, Defendant extended a Rule 68 offer of
judgment on December 15, 2014, which Plaintiff rejected. Then,
on December 22, 2014, Defendant moved to dismiss, contending
that the offer of judgment rendered Plaintiff’s individual claim
moot and that the entire action should be dismissed.
A case is moot when a plaintiff receives all the relief
sought in the complaint.

Kensington Physical Therapy, Inc. v.

Jackson Therapy Partners, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 689, 693 (D.Md.
2012) (“Kensington I”) (citing Friedman’s Inc. v. Dunlap, 290
F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002).

Sometimes, an offer of settlement

or judgment is deemed to constitute complete relief, even if not
accepted by the plaintiff, and thus to moot a complaint.

Id.

(citing Zimmerman v. Bell, 800 F.2d 386, 390 (4th Cir. 1986)).
Here,

of

course,

there

is

a

complicating

factor

Plaintiff seeks to represent others in a class action.
no

binding,

clear

authority

in

this

circuit

on

because
There is

whether

an

unaccepted offer of judgment (if it offers complete relief to
the named plaintiff), prior to the filing of a motion for class
certification,

moots

the

action.

District

courts

in

this

circuit have consistently ruled that the putative class action
is not rendered moot in this situation.
Citing Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 348 (3rd
Cir. 2004), Judge Williams held in Kensington I, 880 F.Supp.2d.
2

at 694, that, absent undue delay in filing a motion for class
action certification, the relation back doctrine saves a case
from becoming moot.

Later, in Kensington Physical Therapy, Inc.

v. Jackson Therapy Partners, LLC, 974 F.Supp.2d 856, 862 (D.Md.
2013) (“Kensington II”), Judge Williams noted:
At least four circuit courts have recognized
the relation back doctrine as an exception
to mootness in the class action context.3
These
cases
propose
that
a
complete
settlement offer made before the plaintiff
files a motion for class certification does
not moot the putative class action provided
that
the
plaintiff
move
for
class
certification within a reasonable time after
discovery. The Seventh Circuit embraced the
contrary view in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp.,
662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011).
In Damasco,
which
arose
under
the
TCPA
[Telephone
Consumer Protection Act], the court held
that a complete settlement offer made before
the plaintiff moved for class certification
mooted
the
plaintiff’s
putative
class
action. See id. at 895–96.
3

Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery,
Inc., 639 F.3d 1239, 1250 (10th Cir.2011)
(“[W]e hold that 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.”); Pitts v.
Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1092
(9th
Cir.
2011)
(“[W]e
hold
that
an
unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment — for
the full amount of the named plaintiff’s
individual claim and made before the named
plaintiff
files
a
motion
for
class
certification — does not moot a class
3

action.”); Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC,
553 F.3d 913, 921 (5th Cir. 2008) (“[W]hen a
FLSA plaintiff files a timely motion for
certification of a collective action, that
motion
relates
back
to
the
date
the
plaintiff
filed
the
initial
complaint,
particularly when one of the defendant's
first actions is to make a Rule 68 offer of
judgment.”); Weiss, 385 F.3d at 348 (“Absent
undue delay in filing a motion for class
certification, ... where a defendant makes a
Rule 68 offer to an individual claim that
has the effect of mooting possible class
relief
asserted
in
the
complaint,
the
appropriate
course
is
to
relate
the
certification motion back to the filing of
the class complaint.”).
The Supreme Court’s decision in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v.
Symczyk, 133 S.Ct. 1523, 1529 (2013), does not undermine that
conclusion.

Genesis

involved

FLSA,

rather

than

class

stated

that

class

a

actions

a

collective

action,
are

and

action

the

“fundamentally

Court

under

the

explicitly

different”

from

collective actions.
Accordingly,

even

if

the

Rule

68

Offer

of

Judgment

constitutes full relief for Plaintiff, the unaccepted offer does
not moot this case as long as Plaintiff does not unduly delay in
filing a motion for class certification.

Defendant’s motion

will be denied.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

4