Lori Shamblin filed a putative class action against Obama For America, alleging that she had received two unsolicited telephone calls to her cellular phone that were made with an auto-dialer and used pre-recorded messages, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”).  Shamblin subsequently amended for complaint, adding several new defendants, including New Partners Consulting, Inc. (“NPC”).  NPC moved to dismiss Shamblin’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Shamblin’s rejection of an offer of judgment mooted her claim against NPC.  On November 5, 2014, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied NPC’s motion.  Shamblin v. Obama, No. 13-cv-2428, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156717 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2014). 

As we have previously reported (and as numerous other courts have similarly held), a defendant’s offer of judgment to a named plaintiff may moot a claim (if the offer is made before the plaintiff moves for class certification), depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.  However, in order for an offer of judgment to moot a claim, it is necessary for the offer to satisfy the plaintiff’s entire demand, so that the offer unquestionably is sufficient to resolve the case and remove any dispute over which to litigate.

NPC submitted an offer of judgment to Shamblin, offering (in pertinent part): 1) to pay $7,500 (above the maximum statutory damages permitted by the TCPA); and 2) that the judgment would enjoin NPC from placing autodialed or pre-recorded calls to Shamblin’s cellular telephone number.  After Shamblin rejected the offer, NPC requested the District Court to dismiss the claim, arguing that Shamblin’s rejection mooted her claim.

In denying NPC’s motion, the District Court noted that Shamblin sought recovery and relief “from all Defendants and not solely from” NPC.  Because NPC’s offer of judgment only offered relief by NPC individually and none of the other defendants, the court concluded that NPC’s offer did not provide the complete and “maximum relief available under the law” if Shamblin prevailed on her claims in their entirety. 

Likewise, the Court noted that an offer of judgment could not be evaluated solely by the monetary amount offered.  To this end, Shamblin request an injunction against all the defendants from future violations of the TCPA.  Because NPC’s offer of judgment only included an offer that the court could enjoin NPC from calling Shamblin, the District Court again concluded that the offer did not provide complete relief “because it does not include an injunction against the other Defendants” in the action.

Accordingly, the District Court denied NPC’s motion to dismiss.