By: Derek Hawkins//August 29, 2017//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Xavier Laurens, et al. v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, et al.
Case No.: 16-3829
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges
Focus: Standing to Sue
The idea of a theme and variations is a common one in music. It should be in law, too. Here we return to the familiar theme of a defense effort to pretermit a proposed class action by picking off the named plaintiff’s claim. Several variations on that theme have been tried and have failed. See Campbell‐Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (Rule 68 offers of judgment); Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2017) (Rule 67 payments to court registry).
Undeterred, the defendant in the case now before us asserts that an unaccepted offer of relief before a putative plaintiff files a lawsuit deprives that plaintiff of standing. We see no reason why the timing of the offer has such a powerful effect. Black‐letter contract law states that offers do not bind recipients until they are accepted. See, e.g., ALI Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 17 (1981). Hence while the legal effect of every variation on the strategic‐mooting theme has not yet been explored, we are satisfied that an unaccepted pre-litigation offer does not deprive a plaintiff of her day in court.
Since Khadija did not accept Volvo’s offer, her injury‐in‐ fact from Volvo’s alleged misrepresentations remains unredressed. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court dismissing this case for lack of standing and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and Remanded