Settlement offer doesn’t put end to litigation
Reprints
Rejecting a settlement offer does not make litigation moot, says a federal appeals court in overturning a lower court ruling that had dismissed a putative class action case involving unsolicited faxes.
St. Louis-based Radha Geismann M.D., P.C., a corporation owned by internist Dr. Radha Geismann, filed suit in 2014 in Missouri state court against New York-based Zocdoc Inc., an online medical care scheduling service, charging that two unsolicited advertising faxes it received violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to Thursday’s ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. Zocdoc Inc. The complaint asked that the case be treated as a class action.
The case was later transferred to the U.S. District Court in New York, which granted Zocdoc ‘s motion to dismiss the case on the basis the company had offered to settle the litigation for $6,000 plus fees, although Dr. Geismann had refused the settlement.
Dr. Geismann then appealed, and while the appeal was pending, Zocdoc deposited a check for $6,100 with the District Court.
“We conclude that the settlement offer did not render the action moot and that judgment should not have been entered nor the action dismissed on that basis,” said a three-judge appeals court panel in its ruling Thursday.
The appeals court cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s January 2016 ruling in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Jose Gomez, in which Mr. Gomez had allowed a settlement offer to lapse in a case filed under the TCPA.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held in her majority opinion in that case that “an unaccepted settlement offer has no force.”
The appeals court ruling, which notes the District Court ruling had been reached before the Campbell-Ewald decision, remanded the case for further proceedings.
Read Next
-
Greenberg settlement ends high-profile but unique case
The legal wrangling that played out over 12 years and resulted in former American International Group Inc. chief Maurice R. Greenberg agreeing to pay $9 million to settle charges over an alleged reinsurance fraud is unlikely to have major implications for other corporate executives, say some experts.
