Anthony M. Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., f/k/a ... - Maryland Courts

endered moot by post-suit tender of compensatory damages, unlike punitive damages. See,
e.g., Bates, 785 N.E. 2d at 62 (“Defendant failed to tender the attorney fees recoverable
under section 10a(c) of the Consumer Fraud Act, and thus, failed to tender the ‘full amount’
owed to plaintiff.”). Punitive damages, thus, should not be available as a matter of law as a
result of the pre-trial tender in the present case. 4
The next step in my analysis is Mr. Frazier’s challenge to the denial of class
certification. Crystal Ford’s Motion to Deny Class Certification was granted primarily on
the ground that the mootness of Mr. Frazier’s individual claim required the dismissal of the
class claims.
Courts are split as to whether a motion to certify a class is sufficient to prevent the
entire action from becoming moot when the named representative’s claims become moot or
whether actual certification of a class is necessary, although the latter, in my estimation,
clearly provides the better foundation for identifying class members and their interests. See,
e.g., Wheatley v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, 459 N.E. 2d
1364 (Ill. 1984) (holding that because no class was certified at the time the individual claims
were dismissed, the class action was properly dismissed); Hayman v. Autohaus on Edens,
Inc., 734 N.E. 2d 1012, 1015 (Ill. App. 2000) (holding that because no class was certified at
the time tender rendered moot Hayman’s claims, dismissal of the entire suit was warranted);
4
While I am cognizant of the fact that punitive damages are intended to punish
the defendant and to deter future wrongful conduct, a defendant that acknowledges its wrong
ways and chooses to pay compensatory damages without an adjudication of liability does not
require further retribution.
11