2 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 August Term, 2017 4 (Argued: Decided: November 27, 2018) 5 Docket No. Nothing forces it to accept ZocDoc’s valuation of that part of the case.ġ7 2692 Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. By rejecting the settlement offer, Geismann effectively stated that its suit “is about more than the statutory damages,' it is also about the reward earned by serving as lead plaintiff. Even if the court first entered judgment enjoining ZocDoc from further faxes and directing the clerk to send Geismann the $20,000, that would not have afforded Geismann complete relief. The Rule 67 procedure provides for safekeeping of disputed funds pending the resolution of litigation, but it cannot alter the parties' contractual relationships and legal duties.

A claim becomes moot when a plaintiff actually receives all of the relief he could receive through litigation. There is no material difference between a plaintiff rejecting a Rule 67 tender of payment and a Rule 68 offer of payment the parties retained the same stake in the litigation they had at the outset. The court again entered judgment in Geismannʹs favor and dismissed the action. On remand, ZocDoc deposited $20,000 (FRCP 67) in 'full settlement of Geismannʹs individual claims,' in the courtʹs registry. The court entered judgment in the amount and under the terms of the unaccepted offer and dismissed the action as moot. After Geismann moved for class certification, ZocDoc made a settlement offer as to Geismann’s individual claims (FRCP 68), whichGeismann rejected. 227, class action complaint, alleging that it received unsolicited faxes from ZocDoc. Geismann filed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C.

Zoc doc inc