By: Derek Hawkins//July 6, 2017//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc.
Case No.: 16-3574
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Court Error – Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Our putative class representative, Fulton Dental, LLC, received an unsolicited fax from Bisco, Inc., and it has sued for damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. Before Fulton moved for class certification, Bisco tried to moot its claim by tendering an offer that (Bisco says) gives Fulton all of the individual relief it could possibly expect. This offer, however, was not submitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, as were the offers in Genesis and Campbell‐Ewald. Instead, Bisco tried to use Rule 67, which allows a party to deposit a payment with the court. The district court concluded that Bisco’s maneuver was enough to moot Fulton’s individual claim and to disqualify it from serving as a class representative, and so it dismissed the entire action. We conclude, however, that this step was premature, and so we return the case to the district court for further proceedings. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded