UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

OPAL MILLMAN, on behalf of herself and ) 

all others similarly situated, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

) CAUSE NO.: 1:16-CV-312-TLS 

 v. ) 

) 

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES ) 

CORPORATION, LEAR CORPORATION ) 

EEDS AND INTERIORS, as successor to ) 

United Technologies Automotive Inc., ) 

ANDREW DAIRY STORE, INC., L.D. ) 

WILLIAMS, INC., CP PRODUCT, LLC, as ) 

successor to Preferred Technical Group, ) 

Inc., and LDW DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Opal Millman brings this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly 

situated against various Defendants, alleging that the Defendants were, in some manner, 

involved in improperly disposing and dumping hazardous chemicals into the groundwater in 

Andrews, Indiana. This matter is before the Court on two pending motions: the Defendant L.D. 

Williams’ Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 88] and the Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Certify Class [ECF No. 102]. 

 On November 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Susan Collins granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint [ECF No. 155]. The same day, the Plaintiff filed her 

Third Amended Complaint [ECF No. 156]. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendant’s 

Motion to Strike the first Amended Complaint is moot, as the Complaint has since been amended 

twice. 
2

 The Court next turns to the Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Certify Class, filed on July 12, 

2017. To date, there has been no response by the Defendants, and the Court notes that additional 

Defendants have been added in the Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the 

parties’ briefing has focused on the Third Amended Complaint, and the parties are also engaged 

in discovery. 

The law in this Circuit used to be that when a plaintiff received an offer of judgment for 

full relief requested, the claim became moot. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 

(7th Cir. 2011), overruled in part by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015). 

In the class action context, mooting the claim of a would-be class representative could head off 

the specter of a larger case. Plaintiffs typically avoided this result by filing a “placeholder” 

motion for class certification. It appears that the Plaintiff has filed such a placeholder in this case. 

The pendency of this place holder motion would serve to protect a putative class from attempts 

to buy off the named plaintiff. Id. Meanwhile, “[i]f the parties have yet to fully develop the facts 

needed for certification, then they can also ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide 

time for additional discovery or investigation.” Id.

 After Chapman, the premature filing of a motion for class certification is no longer 

necessary to prevent buy-off because a defendant’s offer of compensation does not moot the 

litigation or otherwise end the Article III case or controversy. 796 F.3d at 787. The Court further 

finds that filing a motion that the parties are not yet ready to support or defend, and the Court is 

not yet able to rule upon, does not promote the efficient administration of justice. In this case, the 

Motion to Certify Class was filed prior to the Third Amended Complaint and the parties are still 

in the process of discovery and filing their respective answers to the Third Amended Complaint. 

No party has indicated that the certification issue is ripe for adjudication. 
3

 The Court, finding no reason to consider the certification issue at this time, DENIES the 

Motion to Certify Class [DE 102] as PREMATURE, but WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling at 

the appropriate juncture of the case. The Court also DENIES as MOOT the Rule 12(f) Motion to 

Strike the first Amended Complaint [ECF No. 88]. 

SO ORDERED on November 16, 2017. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT