Wilson v. Linda A. King and Associates Claims Management, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 13 Motion to Strike.(TG)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7

STEPHANIE WILSON, on behalf of
8 herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10
11

CASE NO. C14-5101 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION

LINDA A. KING AND ASSOCIATES
CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC.,

12

Defendant.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Stephanie Wilson’s (“Plaintiff”)

15 motion to strike, or in the alternative, declare ineffective, Defendant’s offer of judgment
16 (Dkt. 13). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to
17 the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons
18 stated herein.
19
20

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
On February 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant

21 Linda A. King and Associates Claims Management, Inc. (“Defendant”), alleging
22

ORDER - 1

1 violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.
2 (“FDCPA”). Dkt. 1.
3

On March 7, 2014, Defendant served an offer of judgment on Plaintiff pursuant to

4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. Dkt. 13, Exh. 1. On March 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion
5 requesting that the Court either strike the offer or, in the alternative, allow Plaintiff an
6 additional fourteen days to consider the offer. Dkt. 13. On April 5, 2014, Defendant
7 responded. Dkt. 19. On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 20.
8
9

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s motion is based on a false premise that has already been addressed by

10 the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff contends that:
11
12
13

The Offer seeks to have Plaintiff abandon those absent putative class
members, while threatening to hold Plaintiff responsible for Defendant’s
costs in the event she rejects the offer and a class is not certified. Because
Plaintiff should not face such a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose choice, the Offer
should be stricken or otherwise declared ineffective.

14 Dkt. 13 at 2. In this Circuit, named plaintiffs are not faced with Plaintiff’s hypothetical
15 choice.
16

In Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit

17 held “that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment—for the full amount of the named
18 plaintiff’s individual claim and made before the named plaintiff files a motion for class
19 certification—does not moot a class action . . . .” Id. at 1091–92. In reaching that
20 conclusion, the court addressed the issue of any rule that would allow a defendant to
21 “pick off” or “buy off” the named plaintiff in a class action. Id. at 1091. The court stated
22 that the named plaintiff’s claim and the class claim are legally distinct claims. Thus,

ORDER - 2

1 Plaintiff is in no way “forced to abandon those putative class members . . . .” Moreover,
2 there is no authority for the proposition that Plaintiff is responsible for Defendant’s costs
3 if a class is not certified. Plaintiff may be responsible for costs only if she receives a
4 judgment less favorable than the unaccepted offer. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s
5 motion because it is based on an illogical proposition.
6

With regard to allowing Plaintiff additional time to accept Defendant’s offer of

7 judgment, Plaintiff has failed to provide any authority for such a ruling. Rejecting the
8 offer, however, does not preclude an additional offer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(b). Therefore,
9 the Court denies Plaintiff’s request.
10
11

ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike, or in the

12 alternative, declare ineffective, defendant’s offer of judgment (Dkt. 13) is DENIED.
13

Dated this 29th day of April, 2014.

A

14
15

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3