Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc, Inc.
850 F.3d 507
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Geismann (a Missouri medical practice) sued ZocDoc under the TCPA alleging receipt of two unsolicited advertising faxes and sought class treatment and statutory damages plus injunctive relief.
- ZocDoc served a Rule 68 offer of judgment to Geismann for $6,000 plus reasonable fees and an injunction; Geismann rejected the offer.
- The district court concluded the unaccepted offer satisfied Geismann’s individual claims, entered judgment on those terms, and dismissed the entire action as moot (including the class claim).
- ZocDoc later obtained leave to deposit $6,100 with the court clerk in purported satisfaction of the entered judgment.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald, which was decided while the appeal was pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer can moot a plaintiff’s individual TCPA claim | Geismann: an unaccepted offer is a nullity and does not moot the case; also disputed that the offer fully satisfied statutory damages | ZocDoc: its Rule 68 offer provided complete relief, so the individual claim was moot | Held: An unaccepted Rule 68 offer does not moot the plaintiff’s claim; it is a legal nullity (Campbell-Ewald controlling) |
| Whether entry of judgment based on an unaccepted offer cures mootness | Geismann: entry based on a void offer cannot retroactively moot the case | ZocDoc: district court’s entry of judgment and later deposit meant plaintiff was not empty-handed | Held: The district court should not have entered judgment premised on an unaccepted offer; the offer alone does not confer jurisdictional mootness |
| Whether a class claim is mooted when the named plaintiff’s individual claim is (or appears to be) satisfied by an offer | Geismann: class claim remains if individual claim not satisfied; also argued the offer did not actually satisfy statutory damages | ZocDoc: argued individual resolution extinguishes the live controversy and thus the class claim | Held: Because the individual claim was not mooted by the unaccepted offer, dismissal of the class claim was also error; the class claim remains live |
| Effect of deposit of funds with the clerk after judgment entry | Geismann: post-judgment deposit following an improperly entered judgment does not cure mootness or satisfy injunctive demands | ZocDoc: deposit shows plaintiff was not left empty-handed and supports dismissal | Held: Post-judgment deposit pursuant to a judgment that should not have been entered does not change the conclusion that the offer did not moot the action; injunctive relief remained unsatisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (U.S. 2016) (an unaccepted Rule 68 offer is a legal nullity and does not moot a plaintiff’s claim)
- Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (Rule 68’s purpose is to encourage settlement and avoid litigation)
- Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (U.S. 2012) (a case is moot only when court cannot grant any effectual relief)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (U.S. 2013) (dissent discussed that unaccepted settlement offers leave the dispute live)
- Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, 786 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2015) (noted circuit precedent on Rule 68 and mootness was unclear)