On Jan. 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, a case that addresses issues of unaccepted settlement offers, class actions, motives for litigation and appropriate remedies.
The case began when Jose Gomez received an unsolicited text message from the Campbell-Ewald Co., which had contracted with the U.S. Navy to conduct a multimedia recruiting campaign. Gomez filed suit against Campbell-Ewald under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which makes it illegal to make calls or send texts via an "automatic telephone dialing system" unless the recipient has expressly consented. Gomez sought to recover on his own behalf and also sought to represent a potential class of other people who had received the text message without their consent.
The TCPA provides for damages of $500 per violation; those damages can be tripled if the violation is found to have been "willful and knowing." After the suit was filed, but before a class had been certified, Campbell-Ewald offered Gomez $1,503, his court costs and a promise to stop sending him unwanted messages to settle his suit. Gomez did not accept this offer. Campbell-Ewald then asked the court to dismiss Gomez's claim, arguing that they had offered him everything that he was entitled to under the statute and that, therefore, his case, and the broader potential class action, was moot.
The trial court dismissed Gomez's case. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed this decision, finding that the unaccepted offer did not make the claims — either Gomez's claim or any class claims — moot. Campbell-Ewald appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
At oral argument before the Supreme Court, part of the discussion explored whether Gomez had indeed been offered everything that he wanted or could have achieved in the case. As Chief Justice John Roberts put it to Gomez's counsel, "You're being given everything you want. You won't take yes for an answer." But the advocates and justices also discussed a variety of interests that the plaintiff might have in the case beyond the statutory damages authorized by the TCPA, including attorneys' fees, an injunction, an order of judgment by the court, the certification of a class or the right to litigate class status, cost sharing of attorneys' fees by the potential class and any potential incentive awards that might be available to the lead plaintiff in a class action. Ultimately, the court held that because Gomez rejected the settlement offer and Campbell-Ewald continued to deny liability, Gomez's claim was not moot.
Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez raises a variety of interesting legal questions about remedies, standing, mootness and the use of judicial resources. But the case also raises questions about the relief available to plaintiffs through court proceedings, the interests that plaintiffs might have in pursuing litigation in court, and how well available and desired relief match up with each other. Social scientists have studied the goals and motives that plaintiffs have when they make legal claims. Plaintiffs sue to obtain financial remedies. But many plaintiffs also have broader interests in obtaining information, explanations or apologies; in securing a court's declaration of liability that confirms the rule violation at issue; in having their voice and story heard; in generating behavioral change or prompting institutional reforms; or in obtaining other outcomes that they think contribute to a just and fair resolution of their case.
Many of the interests claimed by Gomez in this case resonate with these findings. For example, obtaining a legal judgment rather than accepting a settlement might serve an interest in having an authority — the judge or the court — declare a particular behavior as having violated the law. Or the plaintiff might see the putative class action as central to his goal of changing the defendant's behavior going forward. Understanding the complex mix of interests that motivate litigation provides an interesting perspective on the question of whether Gomez was offered all that he really wanted.
“Judicial Notebook” is a project of APA Div. 9 (Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues).
