Minnesota Law Review

Rewriting Rule 68: Realizing the Benefits of the Federal Settlement Rule by Injecting Certainty into Offers of Judgment

This Article explores a court-sponsored settlement tool—Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—which allows defendants to formally offer settlement to plaintiffs. The rule differs from typical settlement devices because the plaintiff’s rejection of a Rule 68 settlement offer carries consequences. Namely, if the plaintiff receives less at trial than the amount of the rejected Rule 68 offer, she cannot recover otherwise awardable costs (and often attorneys’ fees) incurred after rejecting the offer. Thus, defendants use the rule to encourage plaintiffs to accept reasonable settlement offers before costs and attorneys’ fees escalate.

Because of the increasing costs of litigation and the case backlogs in the federal courts, alternative dispute resolution has gained attention over the years. Particular attention has arisen in recent years with regard to Rule 68. This Article focuses on a largely unexplored aspect of Rule 68—the offer itself and the complexities it currently and unnecessarily entails. While significant scholarship focuses on the consequences of rejecting Rule 68 offers, the scholarship does not explore the barriers that discourage parties from making such offers in the first place and from being able to fairly evaluate those offers. This Article proposes an amendment to Rule 68 that reduces barriers and expenses at the offer stage, thus encouraging fair use of the rule without resort to collateral litigation.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]