Author Topic: Supreme Court rules unsuccessful FDCPA plaintiffs must pay opponents' costs  (Read 6309 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 820
My take is that the decision is a broad based rule that judges *can* grant defendant's costs under 54(d).

The Supreme Court itself expressly does not rule on the Rule 68 argument.

I think as a matter of strategy you are playing with fire by ignoring/rejecting a reasonable 68 offer as I think it would make a judge more likely to award the defendant costs, I don't see it as being a legal requirement for there to be a 68 offer.
"I was THIS CLOSE to being complete!" - Fight Club

I am not your attorney.  Nothing I say should be construed as legal advice nor does it create an attorney client relationship.


  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 91
Within this thread there were comments regarding:

I think if the rule 68 is absent, this case does not apply.

What would make/not make rule 68 absent?  In other words, can someone explain what is being presented here?

I am not an attorney. I am not giving legal advice. Any information I give regarding my experiences are for entertainment purposes and to be used only for interpretive dance.


  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5133
Been there done that.  My Rule 68 offer was $1,000 and I didn't except it, but it did get my attention when they decided to take a $1,000 judgment against themselves.