Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 FEBRUARY 2016

Class Action Defense Pick-Off Strategy Shot Down By SCOTUS

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Contributor
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz is a litigation powerhouse and business accelerator serving leaders in life sciences, private...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Our colleagues Michael Arnold and Gauri Punjabi recently discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the Federal Rule 68 "pick off" strategy on Mintz Levin's Employment Matters Blog.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Our colleagues Michael Arnold and Gauri Punjabi recently discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the Federal Rule 68 "pick off" strategy on Mintz Levin's Employment Matters Blog. We previously blogged about this crafty strategy employed by class-action defense counsel back in November 2014. Following the recent Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez decision, defense counsel may no longer argue that a rejected Rule 68 offer that fully satisfies a named plaintiff's claims is sufficient by itself to moot an action. Under basic principles of contract law, the Court ruled, an offer of judgment once rejected has no force and parties retain the same stake in litigation as at the outset. However, this decision does not necessarily foreclose defendants from "picking off" named plaintiffs by making an actual payment for the full amount of the claim. To read more about the defeat of the Rule 68 "pick off" strategy and the actual payment option, click here.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from