Doyle v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13291
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Doyle sued Midland under the FDCPA alleging repeated wrongful calls to his cellphone in 2011, claiming violations of §§ 1692c(b), 1692d, and 1692d(6).
- District court dismissed the § 1692c(b) claim for failure to state a claim but allowed the § 1692d and § 1692d(6) claims to proceed.
- Midland served a written Rule 68 Offer of Judgment for $1,001 plus fees and costs; Doyle did not accept.
- At a motion hearing Midland orally offered $1,011 (adding $10 for actual damages) plus fees, costs, and disbursements — an amount Doyle conceded equaled all relief he could obtain.
- Doyle refused the oral offer; the district court held the case moot for lack of Article III jurisdiction and dismissed. Doyle appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant’s pre-verdict offer that equals the plaintiff’s maximum possible recovery can render the case moot under Article III | Doyle: An oral offer cannot render the case moot because a Rule 68 offer must comply with Rule 68’s formalities | Midland: A defendant’s tender of full relief (even orally or outside Rule 68 form) eliminates a live controversy and moots the case | Mootness: An offer need not comply with Rule 68 to moot a case; dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction affirmed |
| Whether dismissal of the § 1692c(b) claim was erroneous and affects jurisdictional ruling | Doyle: District court erred in dismissing § 1692c(b) claim | Midland: Even if dismissal was erroneous, total relief available remained $1,011 and mootness analysis is unaffected | Merit of § 1692c(b) dismissal is moot because Doyle conceded no greater relief would follow; jurisdictional dismissal stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. United Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754 (4th Cir. 2011) (mootness doctrine not constrained by Rule 68 formalities)
- ABN Amro Verzekeringen BV v. Geologistics Ams., Inc., 485 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal based on tender of maximum amount owed, not on formal Rule 68 offer)
- Abrams v. Interco Inc., 719 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1983) (consent to judgment for maximum liability removes justification for continued litigation)
- Fox v. Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y., 42 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 1994) (when a case becomes moot, federal courts lack Article III jurisdiction)
- APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2003) (standard of review for dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)