context: Additionally, Defendant cites, inter alia, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Weiss; however, that Court decided the mootness issue in the context of a class action complaint.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.parenthetical: stating, "[bjecause defendants' Rule 68 offer included no relief for the putative class, ... we address the mootness question in that context"
citation_a.sentence: (Doc. 12, p. 3), citing Weiss, 385 F.3d 337 (stating, “[bjecause defendants’ Rule 68 offer included no relief for the putative class, ... we address the mootness question in that context”); see also Zeigenfuse v. Apex Asset Mgmt., L.L.C., 239 F.R.D. 400, 403 (E.D.Pa.2006) (concluding “that the offer of judgment must now be stricken to prevent it from undermining the use of the class action device”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 239 F.R.D. 400, 403
citation_b.parenthetical: concluding "that the offer of judgment must now be stricken to prevent it from undermining the use of the class action device"
citation_b.sentence: (Doc. 12, p. 3), citing Weiss, 385 F.3d 337 (stating, “[bjecause defendants’ Rule 68 offer included no relief for the putative class, ... we address the mootness question in that context”); see also Zeigenfuse v. Apex Asset Mgmt., L.L.C., 239 F.R.D. 400, 403 (E.D.Pa.2006) (concluding “that the offer of judgment must now be stricken to prevent it from undermining the use of the class action device”).