Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01869/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01869-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 - 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Thweatt, )

)

 Plaintiff, ) No. CV 05-1869-PHX-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER AND OPINION

Koglmeier, Dobbins & Snith )

[sic-Smith], et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

Pending before the Court is the defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of

Order Allowing Withdrawal of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment (doc. #30). 

Having considered the parties' memoranda in light of the record, the Court finds

that the motion should be granted.

Background

This action, originally assigned to the Honorable Earl H. Carroll, was

commenced by the plaintiff on June 21, 2005 pursuant to the Federal Debt

Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This action stems from a forcible detainer

action that the defendants filed in justice court against the plaintiff seeking his

eviction from his rented townhouse. The plaintiff filed a second FDCPA action

Case 2:05-cv-01869-PGR Document 49 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 The offer of judgment stated the following:

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 68, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

defendants Koglmeier, Dobbins, & Smith, P.L.C., J. Denton Dobbins Jr., and

Matthew Koglmeier, offer to allow judgment to be taken against Koglmeier

Dobbins & Smith, P.L.C. only, in this cause as full and final settlement of all

claims against all defendants in the total sum of THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS

and 00/100 ($3,000.00), plus taxable costs accrued to date provided the same is

accepted in writing within 10 days after service hereof.

If this offer is accepted, the amount to be awarded for attorney's fees is

$0.00.

- 2 -

arising from the same eviction proceeding on July 7, 2005; the second action,

CV-05-2005-PHX-MHM, assigned to the Honorable Mary H. Murgia, is a class

action and includes among its defendants all of the defendants in this action.

On March 8, 2006, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Acceptance of Rule 28 [sic68] Offer of Judgment (doc. #14); attached to the notice was the defendants' offer

of judgment dated February 27, 2006.1

 The Clerk of the Court having not yet

entered judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 68, the plaintiff filed an Application for

Entry of Judgment (doc. #15) on March 27, 2006. The parties thereafter

submitted differing proposed forms of judgment. On March 31, 2006, the plaintiff

filed a Motion to Withdraw His Acceptance of Defendants' Offer of Judgment

(doc. #19), and he filed an amended motion on April 3, 2006 (doc. #23). The

basis for the motion was the plaintiff's disagreement with the defendants'

contention that the plaintiff's acceptance of the offer of judgment included the

claims in his class action pending before Judge Murgia. After discussing the

matter with counsel in short hearings held on April 3, 2006 and April 17, 2006,

which was before the defendants had the opportunity to file any written response

to the plaintiff's motion, Judge Carroll entered an order (doc. #28) on April 20,

Case 2:05-cv-01869-PGR Document 49 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 - 3 -

2006 in which he granted without explanation the plaintiff's request to withdraw

his acceptance of the offer of judgment; Judge Carroll also recused himself in that

order and the action was reassigned to the undersigned Judge that same day. 

The defendants filed their pending motion for reconsideration of Judge Carroll's

order on May 18, 2006.

Discussion

The Court initially concludes that it may reconsider Judge Carroll's order

because it was an interlocutory order and such orders are always subject to being

reconsidered prior to entry of final judgment, even by a subsequently assigned

judge, see e.g., Langevine v. District of Columbia, 106 F.3d 1018, 1023 (D.C.Cir.

1997), and that, in the exercise of its discretion, it should consider the merits of

the defendants' reconsideration motion notwithstanding the defendants'

insufficiently explained failure to file the motion within the 10-day time period set

forth by LRCiv 7.2(g). See Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enterprises, Inc., 932 F.2d 1043,

1048 (2nd Cir. 1991) ("[W]e agree with our sister circuits that the district court has

the inherent power to decide when a departure from its Local Rules should be

excused or overlooked."); see also, Guam Sasaki Corp. v. Diana's Inc., 881 F.2d

713 (9th Cir. 1989) ("It is for the court in which a case is pending to determine

what departures from ... rules of court are so slight and unimportant that the

sensible treatment is to overlook them.")

The limited issue before the Court at this time is not how the offer of

judgment is to be construed because that issue is not now properly before the

Court - the issue is whether the Court's decision to allow the plaintiff to withdraw

his acceptance of the offer of judgment prior to entry of judgment was proper as a

Case 2:05-cv-01869-PGR Document 49 Filed 08/16/06 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 The Court rejects the defendants' contention that Judge Carroll erred in not recusing

himself before ruling on the plaintiff's motion. The defendants' position that Judge Carroll

should not have ruled on the motion if he believed that he had a reason to recuse himself is

sustainable only if the recusal was for cause and thus mandated by either 28 U.S.C. § 144 or §

455. While Judge Carroll did not state why he was recusing himself, his status as a senior

judge gives him the right to recuse himself from any case at any time for any reason, and this

Court cannot and will not infer from the record before it that Judge Carroll chose to recuse for

any reason mandated by statute as any such inference would be improperly based on pure

speculation.

- 4 -

matter of law. The Court concludes that it was not.2 

First, the Court committed clear error in not promptly entering judgment

after the plaintiff filed his Rule 68 notice of acceptance. Outside of a very few

exceptions not relevant here to this action, a Rule 68 offer of judgment is selfexecuting once its acceptance is filed with the Court and neither the Court nor

any court official has any discretion to do anything regarding that acceptance

other than to enter judgment. Ramming v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America,

390 F.3d 366, 370-71 (5th Cir. 2004); accord, Webb v. James, 147 F.3d 617, 621

(7th Cir. 1998) ("Entry of a Rule 68 judgment is ministerial rather than

discretionary. Thus, there is no opportunity for a district court to even consider

allowing rescission of the Rule 68 'contract.'"); Perkins v. U.S. West

Communications, 138 F.3d 336, 338 (8th Cir. 1998) ("... Rule 68 leaves no

discretion in the district court to do anything other than enter judgment once an

offer of judgment has been accepted. By directing that the clerk shall enter

judgment after proof of offer and acceptance has been filed, the explicit language

of [Rule 68] indicates that the district court possesses no discretion to alter or

modify the parties' agreement.") (Emphasis in original); Mallory v. Eyrich, 922

F.2d 1273, 1279 (6th Cir. 1991) (Same). The Court simply had no authority to

Case 2:05-cv-01869-PGR Document 49 Filed 08/16/06 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 - 5 -

delay entry of the accepted offer while the parties disputed the manner in which

the accepted offer should be construed. Oates v. Oates, 866 F.2d 203, 208 (6th

Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1109 (1989) (We agree ... that the clerk was required

to enter judgment under Rule 68. ... The clerk refused to enter judgment because

the parties had not resolved their dispute on whether 'costs' included attorney's

fees. However, Rule 68 does not condition entry of judgment on the resolution of

all issues.") (Internal brackets omitted).

Second, the procedural device employed by the plaintiff to seek relief from

his acceptance of the offer of judgment was improper in that the only appropriate

mechanism in which to raise any challenge to an accepted Rule 68 offer of

judgment is a post-judgment motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60. Fafel v.

Dipaola, 399 F.3d 403, 414 (1st Cir. 2005); Webb, 147 F.3d at 622; Richardson v.

Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp., 49 F.3d 760, 765 (D.C.Cir. 1995).

Because the plaintiff timely accepted the offer of judgment, the Court will

direct the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in accordance with the language of

the accepted offer. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Order

Allowing Withdrawal of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment (doc. #30) is granted to

the extent that the portion of the Court's Order entered on April 20, 2006 (doc.

#28) "granting Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw his Acceptance of Defendants' Offer

of Judgment. (Dkts. 19, 23.)" is vacated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Withdraw

his Acceptance of Defendants' Offer of Judgment (doc. #23) is reinstated and is

denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter final

Case 2:05-cv-01869-PGR Document 49 Filed 08/16/06 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 - 6 -

judgment for the plaintiff and against defendant Koglmeier, Dobbins & Snith [sicSmith], P.L.C. in this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 68 in the amount of

$3,000.00, plus taxable costs accrued through March 8, 2006, as full and final

settlement of all claims against all defendants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants' Motion for Consolidation

(doc. #42) is denied as moot.

DATED this 15th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01869-PGR Document 49 Filed 08/16/06 Page 6 of 6