Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Graduation Source, LLC

5 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Will Tender of Full Amount of Named Plaintiff’s Claim Moot a TCPA Class Action?

    Carlton Fields Jorden BurtKristin Ann ShepardMarch 28, 2016

    The Supreme Court left open the possibility that an actual tender of the full amount of plaintiff’s claim, evidencing an intent to pay – as opposed to a mere contract offer, would moot the claim. That open possibility has been addressed by Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Graduation Source, LLC, 14-cv-3232 (S.D.N.Y.). Defendants facing a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) putative class action paid $9,200 into the court’s registry for plaintiff’s benefit and requested entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff, as well as an order enjoining defendants from violating the TCPA.

  2. A Twist on Campbell-Ewald: Seventh Circuit Rejects Effort to Moot Class Action Claims Under F.R.C.P. 67

    Morrison & Foerster LLP - Class DismissedAshley NakamuraJuly 19, 2017

    TakeawayFulton is one of several post-Campbell-Ewald cases rejecting defendants’ attempts to moot a putative class action by mooting the named plaintiff’s individual claims. See, e.g., Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur, Inc., No. 14-3423, 2016 WL 1359220 (3d Cir. Apr. 6, 2016) (see our Weitzner post here); Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Graduation Source, LLC, No. 14-cv-3232 (NSR), 2016 WL 872914, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2016); Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C., 312 F.R.D. 304, 306 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (see our Brady post here). However, a judge in the Southern District of New York saw things differently in Leyse v. Lifetime Entertainment Services, LLC, No. 13 Civ. 574 (AKH), 2016 WL 1253607 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2016), holding that a defendant’s payment of plaintiff’s individual claims plus court costs required entry of judgment.

  3. SCOTUS: Rule 68 Offer Does Not Moot Class Action Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016)

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPJanuary 29, 2017

    Id.Finally, our conclusion is consistent with district court decisions issued since Campbell-Ewald was decided. See Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Graduation Source, LLC, ___ F. Supp. 3d. ____, No. 14-cv-3232 (NSR), 2016 WL 872914, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2016) (“Although Defendants sought to avail themselves of the hypothetical proposed in CampbellEwald by depositing the full amount of statutory damages into the Court’s Finance Unit and assenting to the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff in its Complaint, . . . this Court is bound by Campbell-Ewald to afford Plaintiff a fair opportunity to show that class certification is warranted. . . . [If] after discovery Plaintiff fails to certify a class, Defendants may renew their request to issue judgment in favor of Plaintiff based upon a complete offer of relief.”); Brady v. Basic Research, LLC, 312 F.R.D. 304, 306 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (precluding a defendant from using Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67 to moot a case before a plaintiff has had a fair opportunity to pursue class certification).8 We approve of these decisions, which adhere to the requirementsof Article III without depriving a named plaintiff of Campbell-Ewald’s “fair opportunityto sh

  4. No Method to the Mootness: Ninth Circuit Rejects Allstate’s Effort to Moot Class Action Claims

    Morrison & Foerster LLP - Class DismissedAshley NakamuraMay 19, 2016

    Since Allstate’s release of the $20,000 was contingent on the district court’s dismissal, plaintiff had not yet received funds, and therefore had not received his entitled-to relief.TakeawayChen is one of several post-Campbell-Ewald cases rejecting defendants’ attempts to moot a putative class action by mooting the named plaintiff’s individual claims. See, e.g.,Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur, Inc., No. 14-3423, 2016 WL 1359220 (3d Cir. Apr. 6, 2016); Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Graduation Source, LLC, No. 14-cv-3232 (NSR), 2016 WL 872914, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2016); Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C., 312 F.R.D. 304, 306 (E.D.N.Y. 2016). (See our Brady post here).

  5. Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., --- F.3d ---, No. 13–16816, 2016 WL 1425869 (9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2016)

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPMay 16, 2016

    Id.Finally, our conclusion is consistent with district court decisions issued since Campbell-Ewald was decided. See Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Graduation Source, LLC, ___ F. Supp. 3d. ____, No. 14-cv-3232 (NSR), 2016 WL 872914, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2016) (“Although Defendants sought to avail themselves of the hypothetical proposed in Campbell Ewald by depositing the full amount of statutory damages into the Court’s Finance Unit and assenting to the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff in its Complaint, . . . this Court is bound by Campbell-Ewald to afford Plaintiff a fair opportunity to show that class certification is warranted. . . . [If] after discovery Plaintiff fails to certify a class, Defendants may renew their request to issue judgment in favor of Plaintiff based upon a complete offer of relief.”); Brady v. Basic Research, LLC, 312 F.R.D. 304, 306 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (precluding a defendant from using Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67 to moot a case before a plaintiff has had a fair opportunity to pursue class certification).8 We approve of these decisions, which adhere to the requirements of Article III without depriving a named plaintiff of Campbell-Ewald’s “fair opportunity to