Businesses of all types and sizes throughout the United States, Mexico and beyond bring their disputes to Gardere's litigation team and receive practical, responsive, boutique-style attention in return. Our clients have access to the firepower and value of a well-known and highly-regarded Firm's capabilities and interdisciplinary strengths.
Gardere has a national and international energy practice formed around our Energy Industry Team, which is a multidisciplinary group of approximately 60 attorneys with diverse backgrounds, experience and skills specific to the energy industry. Our team includes attorneys who have served as in-house counsel for major energy companies, providing a depth of insight into our clients' needs, issues and concerns. We understand and regularly practice in virtually every sector of the energy, and we represent a wide variety of industry participants from multinational corporations to individuals.
From our offices in the United States and Mexico, our International Practice helps clients operate in today’s global economy. We have more than 30 professionals operating as a boutique within an Am Law 200 law firm and are able to provide focused service with the resources of a large firm. We understand that clients who are engaged in the global marketplace need lawyers who can operate seamlessly across multiple jurisdictions. Our international experts are multi-lingual, are culturally fluent and intimately familiar with various legal systems across the world, especially those in Latin America. Whether you need help with commercial transactions, regulatory matters, customs and import regulations, immigration matters, M&A and joint ventures, international disputes, or international tax planning, Gardere’s international team is here to assist you.
We represent domestic and foreign private funds in all aspects of fund formation, fund operations, platform and add-on acquisitions, and portfolio company operations. Our team has a reputation for being the go-to-lawyers for private equity funds, hedge funds, venture capital funds and family offices. We are known for our vast deal experience, the efficient way we staff and manage our work, and the way we maintain our relationships. We get deals done with sophisticated, strategic, and practical advice tailored to the needs of our clients.
*Not admitted to practice law.
On April 16, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a defendant employer’s settlement offer to a plaintiff mooted the plaintiff’s claim and prevented her from leading a collective action for unpaid wages. The controversial ruling by a sharply divided Court suggests employers may be able to avoid collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act by “picking off” the named plaintiff through early action.
The case was brought by Laura Symczyk, a nurse complaining of unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. She styled the case as a collective action in which she sought relief for herself and all persons similarly situated. At the same time the employer, Genesis Health Care Corp. (“Genesis”), answered the lawsuit, it made a Rule 68 offer of judgment which offered full damages plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The settlement offer stated it would expire at the end of 10 days, at which time it would be deemed withdrawn. Symczyk did not respond to the offer, instead letting it expire. After the plaintiff let the offer lapse, Genesis moved the Court to dismiss the suit, contending the plaintiff’s claim was mooted by the offer of full relief. The trial court agreed and dismissed the entire suit, noting that no other plaintiff had yet joined. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that while Symczyk’s claim was mooted, the process had improperly prevented the collective action from reaching the class certification stage. The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed and affirmed the ruling of the district court.
The Supreme Court’s opinion, authored by Justice Thomas, did not resolve the circuit split as to whether an unaccepted offer of full relief to a class representative moots the representative’s claim because the issue was not technically before the Court. It did rule, however, that where the law of the circuit holds the claim is mooted, the plaintiff can no longer proceed on behalf of the class. Where, as here, no other members have opted into the class at the time of the offer of settlement, the entire suit is mooted along with the plaintiff’s individual claim.
Justice Kagan filed a bold dissent, joined by three other justices, rejecting the fundamental premise of the majority’s opinion—that an unaccepted offer of settlement can moot a plaintiff’s claim. An unaccepted settlement offer, Justice Kagan contends, is a legal nullity, like an unaccepted offer to contract, and does not deprive a plaintiff of her individual claim. Justice Kagan chastised the majority for injudiciously ruling on a case with such narrow facts and limited utility,and suggests the Court would have more usefully addressed the issue of whether the plaintiff’s claim could be mooted by an unaccepted offer of settlement.
This case is further evidence of the Supreme Court’s hostility to class action lawsuits. However, the Court did recognize the fundamental differences between traditional Rule 23 class action litigation and collective actions brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Justice Thomas specified that this ruling is inapplicable to class actions brought outside the FLSA.
As a practical matter, employers cannot count on avoiding collective actions simply by making an offer of settlement to the named plaintiff. Many fact-specific issues in this case led the Court to its conclusion—the most notable of which is the fact that no other plaintiff had yet joined the lawsuit. Second, the Third Circuit had held that an unaccepted offer of settlement can moot a plaintiff’s claim. The Court conspicuously did not address the propriety of this ruling. Many other circuits would not reach this same result, especially when the offer was not even declined, but merely expired. Nevertheless, a Rule 68 offer can be an effective strategic measure in eliminating collective actions if the offer is made pre-certification. By satisfying the named plaintiff and potentially limiting the attorneys’ fees recoverable by counsel, a defendant may stave off a full class onslaught. Savvy plaintiffs may also try to avoid this result by seeking earlier class certification, even before sufficient discovery can reveal a potential damages amount for the named plaintiff, or by adding additional claims under state or federal law.
The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.
You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander. A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.
Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used. For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.
AND and OR may be used in a search. Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance."
The + and - sign operators may be used. The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".
To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks. For example, "Project Finance".
Searches are not case sensitive.