Campbell-ewald Co. v. Gomez (577 U.S. 153)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 20, 2016 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 577 U.S. 153 · 136 S. Ct. 663
- Decided
- January 20, 2016
- Term
- October Term 2015
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court. Is an unaccepted offer to satisfy the named plaintiff's individual claim sufficient to render a case moot when the complaint seeks relief on behalf of the plaintiff and a class of persons similarly situated? This question, on which Courts of Appeals have divided, was reserved in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. ----, ----, ----, n. 4, 133 S.Ct. 1523, 1528, 1529, n. 4, 185 L.Ed.2d 636 (2013). We hold today, in accord with Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that an unaccepted settlement offer has no force. Like other unaccepted contract offers, it creates no lasting right or obligation. With the offer off the table, and the defendant's continuing denial of liability, adversity between the parties persists. This case presents a second question. The claim in suit concerns performance of the petitioner's contract with the Federal Government. Does the sovereign's immunity from suit shield the petitioner, a private enterprise, as well? We hold that the petitioner's status as a Government contractor does not entitle it to "derivative sovereign immunity," i.e., the blanket immunity enjoyed by the sovereign. I The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA or Act) 48 Stat. 1064, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), prohibits any person, absent the prior express consent of a telephone-call recipient, from "mak[ing]…
Excerpt of a 58,603-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.