Opinion ID: 31945
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Account Receivable's Offer of Judgment Was Invalid

Text: 20 Appellant also contends that the district court erred by finding that Account Receivable's offer of judgment was invalid. That offer of judgment states: 21 Judgment shall be entered in the amount of One Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($1,000.00), as against Account[] Receivable Technologies, Inc. In addition, Plaintiff's reasonable cost[s] and reasonable attorney's fees now accrued in connection with the above referenced suit, specifically incurred for any claims alleged against Account[ ] Receivable Technologies, Inc., are to be added to the Judgment as against Account Receivable Technologies, Inc. in an amount to be determined by the Court. In addition, Plaintiff Joseph Basha has alleged that he has suffered actual damages. Accordingly, this Offer of Judgment envisions the attorneys for the parties agreeing upon reasonable compensation for Plaintiff's claimed actual damages, and that said amount is added to this Offer of Judgment. 22 (Emphasis added). The court held that the offer was invalid because it failed to properly quantify damages. 6 23 The plain purpose of Rule 68 is to encourage settlement and avoid litigation. Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 7, 105 S.Ct. 3012, 87 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). The Rule prompts both parties to a suit to evaluate the risks and costs of litigation, and to balance them against the likelihood of success on the merits. See id. Thus, Rule 68 offers must provide a clear baseline from which plaintiffs may evaluate the merits of their case relative to the value of the offer. Thomas v. National Football League Players Ass'n, 273 F.3d 1124, 1130 (D.C.Cir.2001) (quoting Gavoni v. Dobbs House, Inc., 164 F.3d 1071, 1076 (7th Cir.1999)). 24 Because the offer purported to settle all claims, yet failed to quantify damages, we agree with the district court that mutual assent did not exist between the parties. Moreover, such a vague offer of judgment did not provide Basha with a clear baseline to evaluate the risks of continued litigation. To hold otherwise would be to strip Rule 68 of its purpose. We thus affirm the district court's refusal to enter judgment against Account Receivable. 7