Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Flowers v. Steerpoint Marketing, LLC

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

May 2, 2019

JOSEPH D. FLOWERS, II, Plaintiff,
v.
STEERPOINT MARKETING, LLC, JOHN SLIMAK, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Doris L. Pryor" United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion Directing Clerk's Office to Enter Judgment (Dkt. 55), in which Plaintiff, Joseph Flowers, II (“Mr. Flowers”) seeks an order directing the Clerk of the Court to enter Judgment in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

         I. Background

         Mr. Flowers's Complaint alleges that Defendants, SteerPoint Marketing, LLC and John Slimak (“SteerPoint”) failed to pay him overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Indiana's Minimum Wage Statute, and Indiana's Wage Claims Statute. [Dkt. 1.] The parties participated in a settlement conference in December 2018, which was unsuccessful. [Dkt. 44.] After the settlement conference, the parties conducted further discovery and continued to discuss settlement options. [Dkt. 57 ¶¶ 2-4.] On April 1, 2019, SteerPoint submitted a written settlement offer to Mr. Flowers, via email, of $25, 000. [Dkt. 57 ¶ 4.] The written offer captioned “Defendants' Offer of Judgment” and signed by defense counsel, states in full:

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, Defendants SteerPoint Marketing, LLC and John Slimak, by counsel, hereby offer to allow the Plaintiff to take a judgment against them in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25, 000.00).

(“April 1 Offer”) [Dkt. 57-2.]

         After receiving SteerPoint's offer, Mr. Flowers's counsel emailed SteerPoint's counsel to discuss the April 1 Offer. The parties' respective counsel had a telephonic conversation on April 3, 2019, wherein defense counsel indicated that the April 1 Offer was intended to include all costs, expenses, and attorney fees. Mr. Flowers's counsel responded that he believed Rule 68 allowed Mr. Flowers to recover attorney fees in addition to the $25, 000 Offer of Judgment. [See Dkt. 57-3.]

         After this phone conversation, defense counsel emailed Mr. Flowers's counsel to confirm their position that the April 1 Offer was intended to be inclusive of all costs, expenses, and attorney fees. [Dkt. 57-3.] Five minutes later, defense counsel submitted “Defendants' Amended Offer of Judgment” that offered Mr. Flowers $25, 000 and expressly stated the offer included attorney fees, costs and all expenses (“April 3 Offer”). [Dkt. 57 at ¶ 6.] Fourteen minutes later, Mr. Flowers filed his “Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment” with this Court, which purported to accept the April 1 Offer. [Dkt. 51.]

         Mr. Flowers now seeks an order directing the Clerk of the Court to enter a judgment in his favor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 due to his acceptance of the April 1 Offer. SteerPoint opposes the entry of judgment, arguing that the terms of any offer by the Defendants, including the April 1 Offer, were meant to be inclusive of all costs and fees and that because no offer of judgment was filed with the Court, any acceptance is in turn invalid.

         II. Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 states:

At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 14 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a). Once an offer of judgment has been accepted and filed, “the court has no discretion to alter or modify the parties' agreement, ” Sanchez v. Prudential Pizza, Inc., 709 F.3d 689, 691 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Webb v. James, 147 F.3d 617, 621 (7th Cir. 1998), and “judgment must be entered.” Webb, 147 F.3d at 621. “Rule 68 offers may not be revoked during the 14-day period established by the Rule, ” Sanchez, 709 F.3d at 692, and once the offer has been accepted it cannot be rescinded. Webb, 147 F.3d at 621. Acceptance is effective when the plaintiff serves a written notice of acceptance on the defendant. Fed.R.Civ.P. 68(a).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.