10-cv-229 Wilder Chiropractic, Inc., v. Pizza Hut of Southern Wisconsin, Inc.

Listen to this article

Civil Procedure
Class actions; mootness

In the context of a class action, a defendant cannot moot the case by settling with the named plaintiff before it moves for class certification.

“It would make little sense to fashion a rule that would allow the fate of a case to be resolved by a race to the courthouse, particularly when the deadline for filing a motion for class certification is still months away. (Defendant made its offer in August 2010; the deadline for filing a motion for class certification is January 2011.) Such an arbitrary result would serve no purpose other than providing defendants a procedural advantage or requiring plaintiffs in every class action to accompany their complaint with a motion for class certification. Neither outcome makes any sense. Generally, courts are reluctant to fashion rules of jurisdiction in ways that allow one party to manufacture or destroy it. In re Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 606 F.3d 379, 380-81 (7th Cir. 2010) (‘[R]emoval cases present concerns about forum manipulation that counsel against allowing a plaintiff’s post-removal amendments to affect jurisdiction.’); Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 763 (7th Cir. 2009)(‘A plaintiff typically may choose its own forum, but it may not join a nondiverse defendant simply to destroy diversity jurisdiction.’); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Argonaut Insurance Co., 500 F.3d 571, 575 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting courts’ reluctance to allow defendant to moot case through voluntary cessation because it may be ‘maneuvering on the part of the respondent . . . to defeat the petitioners’ ability to obtain a judicial determination of their rights’). Further, the need for discovery may make it impossible in many cases to file a motion for class certification along with the complaint. Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 676 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that district court cannot accept class allegations as true and must ‘make whatever factual and legal inquiries are necessary under Rule 23’ before certifying class).”

10-cv-229 Wilder Chiropractic, Inc., v. Pizza Hut of Southern Wisconsin, Inc.

W.D.Wis., Crabb, J.