The Eastern District of New York recently held that a plaintiff’s TCPA claims were not precluded by the Southern District of Texas’ ruling that the same claims against the same defendants were mooted by a Rule 68 offer of judgment. See Bank v. Spark Energy Holdings, No. 13-6130, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84493 (E.D.N.Y. June 20, 2014).
The plaintiff alleged that he received telemarketing calls from defendants “using an artificial or prerecorded voice” without his prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). He initially filed a class action suit in the Southern District of Texas, where after nearly two years of defending the case and prior to plaintiff moving for class certification, defendants made a Rule 68 offer of judgment offering plaintiff complete relief. Although the plaintiff rejected the offer, the Texas court found that the offer rendered plaintiff’s claims moot because he no longer had a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation. Accordingly, the Texas court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed suit in the Eastern District of New York and asserted the same TCPA claims against the same defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims based on the preclusive effect of the Texas court’s ruling. The New York court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that neither claim nor issue preclusion applied. The New York court held that claim preclusion only applied if there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior action and that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is generally not considered a final judgment on the merits. The New York court further held that issue preclusion did not apply because an identical issue was not adjudicated in the prior action:
"I find that the identical issue is not presented here because the prior’ court’s determination of mootness relied on particular factual circumstances that are not the same as the facts presented in this suit. In the Texas case, the court decided that plaintiff’s individual TCPA claim was moot because plaintiff had rejected a Rule 68 offer that would have provided complete relief on his claim. In this suit, defendants have not made any Rule 68 offer, so the court is not presented with the same factual scenario. Since the first requirement to establish issue preclusion is not satisfied, the Texas court’s prior finding of mootness does not require the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims as moot in this action."
While the New York judge did express sympathy for defendants’ position (having litigated plaintiff’s TCPA claim for almost two years in Texas, successfully moving to have the suit dismissed, and now facing the same TCPA claims in New York), she nevertheless found in favor of the plaintiff, stating: “[a] finding that a claim is moot in one case simply does not mean that claim is moot in all subsequent cases.”
While the opinion appears to undermine the goals that the mootness and preclusion doctrines were meant to serve, if this tactic gains traction, defendants should consider immediately making the same offer of judgment upon notice of the second lawsuit. Defendants should also consider filing a motion to transfer venue to the first court rather than relitigating the mootness issue in the second court.
For more information on the aforementioned case and the TCPA generally, contact Katherine Olson at (312) 334-3444 or email@example.com.