Knopf v. Esposito
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:17-cv-05833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Knopf v. Esposito, Judge Cote ruled that plaintiffs’ clear rejection of Frank Esposito’s Rule 68 offer ended their ability to accept it later.
The ruling affected Norma Knopf and Michael Knopf, who could not accept Frank M. Esposito’s Rule 68 offer after rejecting it, and Esposito, who was entitled to rely on that rejection.
What happened
Norma and Michael Knopf sued Frank M. Esposito and others over an alleged conspiracy involving a state court official. Esposito made an offer of judgment under Rule 68, and the Knopfs’ lawyer clearly told him on February 18, 2021, that they rejected it.
The Knopfs later filed an acceptance of Esposito’s offer on March 1, while still within Rule 68’s 14-day period. They argued that the offer remained open during that period, but Esposito argued that their earlier rejection ended their ability to accept it.
Judge Cote held that the clear rejection ended the Knopfs’ right to accept Esposito’s offer, even though their later acceptance was within 14 days. The court concluded that the Knopfs could not reverse course and accept that same offer.
The detailed version
- Knopf v. Esposito · No. 1:17-cv-05833
- Sarah Netburn
- Mar. 5, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs pursued one claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants conspired to corrupt a state court official in connection with the plaintiffs’ litigation against Michael Sanford and entities he controlled. Fact discovery had closed on February 19, 2021, and the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion was due March 12.
On February 17, defendant Frank M. Esposito made the plaintiffs an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Esposito was proceeding without a lawyer. On February 18, the plaintiffs’ lawyer emailed Esposito that the plaintiffs would not accept the offer. After Esposito asked whether they had rejected it or were merely not accepting it at that time, the lawyer unequivocally replied that the plaintiffs were rejecting it.
On March 1, the plaintiffs filed a notice accepting Esposito’s offer. The acceptance was within Rule 68’s 14-day period. The plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking entry of judgment against Esposito and the Dorsey defendants; the court had denied that motion in a March 1 opinion.
Legal Standard
Rule 68 allows a defending party to offer judgment on specified terms. If the opposing party accepts in writing within 14 days, either party may file the offer and acceptance. The court explained that Rule 68 offers and acceptances are contracts interpreted under ordinary contract principles.
Under those principles, an offeree’s power to accept an offer ends when the offeree rejects it, unless the offeror indicates otherwise. The court reasoned that the 14-day period prevents the offeror from revoking the offer during that period, but does not allow a plaintiff to reject the offer and later accept it.
Ruling
The court held that the plaintiffs’ February 18 rejection was unambiguous and terminated their right to accept Esposito’s offer. Their March 1 acceptance therefore could not be effective, even though it occurred within the 14-day period.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on a First Circuit decision that allowed acceptance after rejection during the Rule 68 period. It concluded that allowing this would create gamesmanship and unpredictability and would prevent the offeror from relying on the rejection.
Conclusion
The court concluded that, having unambiguously rejected Esposito’s Rule 68 offer, the plaintiffs could not reverse course and accept that same offer. The opinion did not state that the underlying § 1983 claim was decided on the merits.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.