St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Jackson & Coker Locumtenens, LLC

Filing 32

OPINION, MEMORANDUM, AND ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 9 ] is denied. Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 3/30/12. (TRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ST LOUIS HEART CENTER,
)
individually and on behalf of all others )
similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JACKSON & COKER
)
LOCUMTENENS, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)

No. 4:11CV1193 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Standing, [Doc. No. 9]. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and the parties have
presented their memoranda in support of their respective positions. For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
Plaintiff filed a “Class Action Petition” in the Circuit Court of the County of
St. Louis, Missouri on May 16, 2011, seeking damages and injunctive relief under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”), by
sending unsolicited faxed advertisements. Defendant removed the matter based on
the Court’s diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Defendant now moves the Court
to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing on the basis that a settlement offer

mooted Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff resists the motion, arguing that the settlement
offer fails to moot its claims because Defendant submitted the offer prior to the
filing of this action and before Plaintiff had retained counsel, and the offer does
not completely satisfy Plaintiff’s claims.
Article III of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to “cases” and
“controversies.” In general, a plaintiff's claims become moot at the time he no
longer has “a legally cognizable interest in the outcome”-that is, when he no
longer has a personal stake in the claim. U.S. Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445
U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (internal quotation omitted). “In a class action, dismissal on
mootness grounds normally is required when the named plaintiffs' claims become
moot prior to a decision on class certification. Hechenberger v. W. Elec. Co., 742
F.2d 453, 455 (8th Cir.1984); Inmates of Lincoln Intake and Det. Facility v.
Boosalis, 705 F.2d 1021, 1023 (8th Cir.1983).” Anderson v. CNH U.S. Pension
Plan, 515 F.3d 823, 826 (8th Cir. 2008); Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs of Indianapolis v.
Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128, 129-30 (1975)(When a named plaintiff lacks a personal
stake in the litigation prior to class certification, the case becomes moot and the
court should dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Littlefield v.
Kirspel, 2008 WL 4278167, 2 (E.D.Ark. 2008).

-2-

The matter currently before the Court is peculiar to those instances where a
defendant may “pick off” the named plaintiff’s individual claim because
Defendant made its offer of settlement prior to the time Plaintiff became a plaintiff
in this lawsuit. On December 2, 2010, before Plaintiff had signed a retainer
agreement, counsel who would ultimately become counsel for Plaintiff, received a
generic settlement offer letter aimed at picking off 51 possible future clients who
would consider bringing a class action against Defendant for its unsolicited fax
advertisements. The offer was made to “any person or entity” that was or would
be represented by counsel in any future TCPA suits against Defendant. Clearly,
this “offer of settlement” fails in that there was, at the time the letter was sent, no
plaintiff with whom Defendant could settle, no action pending which could be
settled and no damages for which the settlement offer could compensate an injured
party.
Plaintiff filed its Petition individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons. As of this date, however, Plaintiff has not filed a
motion for certification of the class, and therefore, a ruling on whether to certify
the class has not been made. Defendant once again sent an offer of settlement.
This offer, however, likewise fails to moot Plaintiff’s claims. As Plaintiff
appropriately argues, the offer neglects to comprehensively include Plaintiff’s
-3-

claims. In its Petition, Plaintiff seeks damages for each violation of the Act, while
the offer merely includes treble damages for fax advertisements received by
Plaintiff. Without discovery on the issue of damages, it is unascertainable whether
these two amounts are indeed the same. As such, the Court is unable to
unequivocally conclude that Defendant’s offer encompasses Plaintiff’s damages in
their entirety. The motion, therefore, must be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 9] is
denied.
Dated this 30th day of March, 2012.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-