Innovative Accounting Solutions, Inc. v. Speedway Office Products et al
OPINION and ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's 3 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil Case No. 17-12563
Honorable Linda V. Parker
SPEEDWAY OFFICE PRODUCTS,
METRO RECORD SERVICE, INC., and
SECURITY X-RAY, INC.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
This putative class action asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227. Innovative Accounting Solutions, Inc.
is the only named Plaintiff. On the same date it initiated this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed
a “Motion for Class Certification” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
(ECF No. 3.) In this motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to reserve ruling on the
motion until it has conducted discovery on whether class certification is
appropriate. The practice of filing premature motions for class certification in
TCPA cases has proliferated in this District as a means to avoid the named
plaintiff’s claim possibly being rendered moot by the defendant’s offer of
judgment. However, with the Supreme Court’s January 20, 2016 decision in
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), there no longer is a need for
plaintiffs to file premature motions for class certification.
In Gomez, the Court addressed the issue of whether an unaccepted offer to
satisfy the named plaintiff’s individual claim renders a case moot when the
complaint seeks relief on behalf of the plaintiff and a class of similarly situated
persons. Id. at 666. The Circuit Courts of Appeals disagreed on the answer to this
question, with the Sixth Circuit holding that an unaccepted offer can moot a
plaintiff’s claim. See id. 669; see also O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enter., Inc., 575
F.3d 567, 574-75 (6th Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court held in Gomez “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.”
Gomez, 136 S. Ct. at 666. Thus, the case is not rendered moot.
In short, there no longer is a reason for Plaintiff to file a motion for
certification which it is not able to support at this time. The motion is premature.
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (ECF No.
3) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 8, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, August 8, 2017, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?