Family Health Chiropractic v. MD On-Line Solutions, Inc., No. 15-3508 (6th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 16a0070n.06 No. 15-3508 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FAMILY HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC, INC., ) ) Plaintiff – Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) MD ON-LINE SOLUTIONS, INC.; STRATEGIC ) EDGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; EDUCATIONAL ) CONCEPTS IN MEDICINE, LLC, ) ) Defendants – Appellants. ) BEFORE: FILED Feb 02, 2016 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ROGERS and WHITE, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.* ROGERS, Circuit Judge. After Family Health Chiropractic (FHC) sued MD On-Line under the Junk Fax Prevention Act, MD On-Line quickly extended a settlement offer. FHC rejected the settlement offer and then filed an amended complaint that sought class certification. MD On-Line subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that because the rejected settlement offer covered all of FHC’s demanded relief, FHC’s claims were moot. MD On-Line now appeals the district court’s denial of that motion to dismiss. Because the Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, 2016 WL 228345 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016), controls the issue in this appeal, the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss was proper. * Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. No. 15-3508 Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Solutions, Inc., et al. Even if we assume that MD On-Line’s settlement offer satisfied all of FHC’s demands, FHC’s claims still give rise to a live case or controversy under Campbell-Ewald. The parties dispute whether the settlement offer covered all of FHC’s demanded relief. Campbell-Ewald, however, held as a general matter that “an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case.” Campbell-Ewald, 2016 WL 228345, at *8. Thus, even if MD OnLine offered complete relief to FHC, FHC’s lack of acceptance of that offer means that this case remains a live case or controversy under Article III. MD On-Line attempts to distinguish its unexpired settlement offer from an expired offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The reasoning of Campbell-Ewald, however, extended to “unaccepted” settlement offers, slip op. 1, 5, 6, 7–8, 9, 11, not just expired settlement offers. FHC’s claims were therefore not rendered moot by the rejected settlement offer from MD On-Line. The district court’s order is therefore affirmed. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
