Offers to settle class actions
Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez
In brief
The Supreme Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit: Campbell-Ewald’s unaccepted offer did not end Gomez’s case, and its federal-contractor status alone did not bar his suit.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · January 20, 2016 · Opinion by Justice Ginsburg
- What it’s about
- Gomez’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim against Campbell-Ewald raised whether an unaccepted settlement offer ended his case and whether federal-contractor status protected the company from suit.
- Who it affects
- Gomez’s complaint can proceed, and Campbell-Ewald cannot avoid the suit solely because it made an unaccepted offer or worked as a federal contractor.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled the offer did not end the case and contractor status alone did not protect Campbell-Ewald from Gomez’s claim; it agreed with the lower court and sent the case back (affirmed and remanded).
Gomez alleged that Campbell-Ewald sent him text messages without his permission. The company offered to pay what it said he could recover under the law, but he did not accept.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act allows consumers to seek statutory damages for text messages sent without permission.
Question presented
1. Does a case become moot when a plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief for his claim? If so, is the answer different when the plaintiff has asserted a class action claim but receives the offer of complete relief before any class is certified? 2. Is the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity limited to claims arising out of property damage caused by public works projects?
What the Court decided
Holding
An unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case, so the District Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate Gomez’s complaint. Article III’s “cases” and “controversies” limitation requires that “an actual controversy... be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed,” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 67 (internal quotation marks omitted), but a case does not become moot as “long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small,” in the litigation’s outcome, Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. ___, ___ (internal quotation marks omitted). Campbell’s status as a federal contractor does not entitle it to immunity from suit for its violation of the TCPA. Unlike the United States and its agencies, federal contractors do not enjoy absolute immunity. A federal contractor who simply performs as directed by the Government may be shielded from liability for injuries caused by its conduct. See Yearsley, 309 U. S., at 20–
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said an unaccepted offer does not end a case while the parties still have a concrete interest in its outcome. Federal contractors do not have the government’s blanket protection from suit, though a contractor that simply follows government directions may be protected from liability for injuries caused by its work.
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Thomaswrote separately
From the opinions
“The problem for Gomez is that the federal courts exist to resolve real disputes, not to rule on a plaintiff ’s entitlement to relief already there for the taking.”
What's next
The District Court can continue deciding Gomez’s complaint. The Supreme Court did not decide whether Gomez is entitled to damages.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Campbell-Ewald
More questions
- Can federal contractors ever be protected from liability?
- Yes. The Court said a contractor that simply follows the government’s directions may be shielded from liability for injuries caused by its conduct.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.