Franco v. Allied Interstate LLC

Second Circuit

Franco v. Allied Interstate LLC

602 F. App'x 40

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 18, 2015

Docket14-1464-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 602 F. App'x 40 (Franco v. Allied Interstate LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Franco v. Allied Interstate LLC, 602 F. App'x 40 (2d Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Gilberto Franco (“Franco”) appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing his class action as moot. Franco argues that (1) defendant’s unaccepted Rule 68 offer did not moot his individual claim, and (2) even if his individual claim were mooted, the class action would not be moot. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to vacate and remand.

On de novo review of the district court’s determination of mootness, see Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89, 94-95 (2d Cir.2011), we identify error in light of our most recent controlling precedent, Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, — F.3d -, No. 14-1389-cv, 2015 WL 2251472 (2d Cir. May 14, 2015). Tanasi makes clear that Franco’s individual claim was not mooted by defendant’s Rule 68 offer, which did not result in the entry of any judgment against the defendant. See id., at-, slip op. at 11-13. Because Franco’s individual claim was not moot, we need not address whether, had his claims been moot, the class action also would have been moot. See id., at-, slip op. at 1-2, 12-13.

We therefore VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Gilberto Franco (“Franco”) appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing his class action as moot. Franco argues that (1) defendant’s unaccepted Rule 68 offer did not moot his individual claim, and (2) even if his individual claim were mooted, the class action would not be moot. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to vacate and remand.

On de novo review of the district court’s determination of mootness, see Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89, 94-95 (2d Cir.2011), we identify error in light of our most recent controlling precedent, Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, — F.3d -, No. 14-1389-cv, 2015 WL 2251472 (2d Cir. May 14, 2015). Tanasi makes clear that Franco’s individual claim was not mooted by defendant’s Rule 68 offer, which did not result in the entry of any judgment against the defendant. See id., at-, slip op. at 11-13. Because Franco’s individual claim was not moot, we need not address whether, had his claims been moot, the class action also would have been moot. See id., at-, slip op. at 1-2, 12-13.

We therefore VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

602 F. App'x 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franco-v-allied-interstate-llc-ca2-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack