Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-15-03508/USCOURTS-ca6-15-03508-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0070n.06

No. 15-3508

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FAMILY HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC, INC.,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MD ON-LINE SOLUTIONS, INC.; STRATEGIC 

EDGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; EDUCATIONAL 

CONCEPTS IN MEDICINE, LLC,

Defendants – Appellants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

BEFORE: ROGERS and WHITE, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.*

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. After Family Health Chiropractic (FHC) sued MD On-Line 

under the Junk Fax Prevention Act, MD On-Line quickly extended a settlement offer. FHC 

rejected the settlement offer and then filed an amended complaint that sought class certification. 

MD On-Line subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that because the rejected settlement 

offer covered all of FHC’s demanded relief, FHC’s claims were moot. MD On-Line now 

appeals the district court’s denial of that motion to dismiss. Because the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, 2016 WL 228345 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016),

controls the issue in this appeal, the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss was proper.

 * Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by 

designation.

 Case: 15-3508 Document: 45-2 Filed: 02/02/2016 Page: 1
No. 15-3508

Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Solutions, Inc., et al.

-2-

Even if we assume that MD On-Line’s settlement offer satisfied all of FHC’s demands, 

FHC’s claims still give rise to a live case or controversy under Campbell-Ewald. The parties 

dispute whether the settlement offer covered all of FHC’s demanded relief. Campbell-Ewald, 

however, held as a general matter that “an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does 

not moot a plaintiff’s case.” Campbell-Ewald, 2016 WL 228345, at *8. Thus, even if MD OnLine offered complete relief to FHC, FHC’s lack of acceptance of that offer means that this case 

remains a live case or controversy under Article III.

MD On-Line attempts to distinguish its unexpired settlement offer from an expired offer 

of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The reasoning of Campbell-Ewald, 

however, extended to “unaccepted” settlement offers, slip op. 1, 5, 6, 7–8, 9, 11, not just expired 

settlement offers. FHC’s claims were therefore not rendered moot by the rejected settlement 

offer from MD On-Line.

The district court’s order is therefore affirmed.

 Case: 15-3508 Document: 45-2 Filed: 02/02/2016 Page: 2