Abstract
Although Rule 68 was designed to facilitate settlements, defendants have attempted to use Rule 68 offers to moot individuals¿ claims. These defendants argue that by offering their understanding of complete relief to a plaintiff, the claim should be mooted. In the past four decades, a circuit split has arisen over whether Rule 68 offers can moot claims and whether judgment should be entered for the plaintiff or the defendant. This Comment advocates for the adoption of the Ninth Circuit¿s holding in Diaz v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp.¿referred to in this Comment as the Diaz approach¿which states that a Rule 68 offer never moots an individual¿s claim. This Comment explores relevant historical jurisprudence that has led to the various legal theories involving mootness in Rule 68 offers. Ultimately, this Comment concludes that by applying the Diaz approach to Rule 68 offers, courts will return Rule 68 to its intended goal: incentivizing settlements without burdening the courts.
Recommended Citation
David M. Rothenberg,
Changing the Rule Changes the Game: A Rule 68 Offer for Complete Relief Should Never Moot an Individual¿s Claim,
65
Emory L. J.
155
(2015).
Available at:
https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol65/iss1/4