Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-15-01517/USCOURTS-ca6-15-01517-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul M. Ingber
Appellee
Leikin, Ingber & Winters, P.C.
Appellee
Carolyn Sebestyen
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0225n.06

Case No. 15-1517

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

CAROLYN SEBESTYEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LEIKIN, INGBER & WINTERS, P.C.; PAUL 

M. INGBER,

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN 

BEFORE: SUTTON and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; BECKWITH, District Judge.

*

PER CURIAM. The district court, bound by then-governing Sixth Circuit precedent, 

held that the defendants’ unaccepted offer of judgment “rendered this case moot.” Sebestyen v. 

Leikin, Ingber & Winters, P.C., No. 13-cv-15182, 2015 WL 1439881, at *6–7 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 

27, 2015). After the plaintiff appealed, the Supreme Court came out the other way, holding that 

“an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case.” 

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). In light of Campbell-Ewald, we 

vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

 

* The Honorable Sandra S. Beckwith, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, 

sitting by designation.

 Case: 15-1517 Document: 29-2 Filed: 04/27/2016 Page: 1