Scott Barr, DDS v. International Dental Supply Co., No. 14-11804 (11th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-11804 Date Filed: 12/05/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-11804 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-61981-RNS SCOTT BARR, DDS, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus INTERNATIONAL DENTAL SUPPLY CO., a Florida corporation, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _______________________ (December 5, 2014) Before WILLIAM PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, and JONES, ∗ District Judge. * Honorable Steve C. Jones, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation. Case: 14-11804 Date Filed: 12/05/2014 Page: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: This appeal presents the issue whether a putative class action becomes moot when a defendant offers a judgment in favor of the only named plaintiff and putative class representative. Scott Barr, DDS, filed a putative class action against International Dental Supply Company, for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. Before Barr moved for class certification, International Dental made an offer of judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, for the maximum monetary damages for Barr’s individual cause of action, an injunction to prevent future violations of the Act, and an entry of a judgment. After Barr did not accept the offer, International Dental moved to dismiss the complaint as moot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The district court granted that motion. Based on our intervening precedent in Jeffrey Stein, D.D.S., M.S.D., P.A. v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership, we reverse and remand. No. 13-15417 (11th Cir. Dec. 1, 2014). Buccaneers Limited controls this appeal. In Buccaneers Limited, the named plaintiff received an offer of judgment under Rule 68, before he moved for class certification. Buccaneers Limited, No. 13-15417, at *2. The named plaintiff did not accept the offer. Id. We held that the unaccepted offer of judgment under Rule 68, did not render the named plaintiff’s complaint moot. Buccaneers Limited, No. 1315417, at *23. Based on that precedent, the offer of judgment in favor of Barr did not render his complaint moot. 2 Case: 14-11804 Date Filed: 12/05/2014 Page: 3 of 3 We REVERSE the order of dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 3