Supreme Court Holds Corporations Cannot Strategically Skirt Class Action Liability

Like many other strategic maneuvers by corporations that can only be characterized as one-sided and unfair, such as burying arbitration clauses in paperwork which deny consumers the right to a fair and impartial jury trial and immunize corporations from sweeping class-wide liability no matter how egregious their conduct, corporations have been attempting to suppress class-wide liability by offering individual plaintiffs the relief necessary to make them whole at the outset of the litigation in order to shut down multi-million dollar class actions. Ā In other words, the corporationā€™s argument is that by offering the named plaintiffs their full relief (which is often only a few hundred or few thousand dollars), the plaintiff has been made whole and, thus, the case is moot. By making such an offer, the corporationā€™s hope is to shut down its potential liability for multiple millions of dollars it would oweĀ to all of the remaining class members.

Rightly so, named plaintiffs, who have promisedĀ to uphold their dutiesĀ to protect and pursue rights not only on behalf of themselves but all of the absent class members, generally reject such strategic offers by corporations meant to shut down the absent class membersā€™ rights to pursue justice. Instead, they choose to reject such strategic offers to pursue justice in court on behalf of all those similarly harmed. Ā Recognizing that the corporationā€™s offers is nothing more than a strategic move to moot the lawsuit, the consumerā€™s position, correctly,Ā is that they have every right to reject such offers and that such a rejection does not moot their class-wide claims, particularly in the face of the corporationā€™s continuing denial of liability.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the consumer. Ā The high court held corporations cannot cut off class action claims by making an offer of full relief to individual plaintiffs where the plaintiff refuses to accept the offer. Ā Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that an unaccepted settlement offer has no force.ā€ Ā Just like other ā€œunaccepted contract offers, it creates no lasting right or obligation. With the offer off the table and the defendantā€™s continuing denial of liability, adversity between the parties persists.ā€ Ā Today is a victory for consumers in holding corporations accountable for their conduct that may haveĀ harmed hundreds if not millions of consumers. The case isĀ Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

To schedule your free initial evaluation, contact us onlineĀ or call (619) 342-8000 today!

SHARE

COMMENTS & DISCUSSIONS

Related Posts

w=2500

Federal Court Holds All Plaintiffs in Precedent-Setting Title IX Case Can Sue San Diego State University for RetaliationĀ Ā 

Haeggquist & Eck, LLP is proud to co-counsel on this landmark case with Bailey & Glasser, LLP and Casey Gerry  ...
Read More
Title IX sex discrimination case HAE

Title IX Sex Discrimination Case Against SDSU Moves Forward Again: Court Holds All Women Athletes Can Sue For Damages, Future Discrimination Can Be BarredĀ 

Haeggquist & Eck, LLP is proud to co-counsel on this landmark case with Bailey & Glasser, LLP and Casey Gerry.   ...
Read More
Court makes landmark decision in favor of student athletes in Title IX lawsuit

Sex Discrimination Case Against SDSU Moving Forward on All Counts: Equal Athletic Financial Aid, Retaliation, and Equal Treatment

SDSU Women Win Nationā€™s First Ruling that Female Student-Athletes Denied Equal Athletic Financial Aid Can Sue Their Schools for Damages ...
Read More
Translate Ā»