[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13138

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-62019-KAM

SCOTT BARR, DDS

on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

THE HARVARD DRUG GROUP, LLC, 

a Michigan corporation 

d.b.a. Expert-Med, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 29, 2015)

Before JORDAN, KRAVITCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-13138 Date Filed: 01/29/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

In this appeal, we must determine whether a putative class action becomes 

moot when a defendant offers a judgment in favor of the only named plaintiff and 

putative class representative and the plaintiff declines the offer. Because this court 

recently answered this question in the negative, we reverse and remand the district 

court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Scott Barr, DDS, filed a putative class action against The Harvard Drug 

Company, LLC (HDC) for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 

47 U.S.C. § 227. Before Barr moved for class certification, HDC made an offer of 

judgment, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 68, for the maximum monetary damages for Barr’s 

individual cause of action, an injunction to prevent future violations of the Act, and 

an entry of a judgment. Barr did not accept the offer and instead moved for class 

certification.

Thereafter, HDC moved to dismiss the complaint as moot. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 

12(b)(1). The district court found Barr’s claims moot and dismissed the complaint 

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

When reviewing a court’s dismissal of a complaint as moot, we review 

factual findings for clear error and the legal issue de novo. Stein v. Buccaneers 

Ltd. P’ship, 772 F.3d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 2014).

Case: 14-13138 Date Filed: 01/29/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Our recent decision in Jeffrey Stein, D.D.S., M.S.D., P.A. v. Buccaneers 

Limited Partnership, controls this appeal.

1 772 F.3d at 704, 709. In Buccaneers 

Limited, the named plaintiff received an offer of judgment under Rule 68 before 

the plaintiff moved for class certification. The plaintiff then rejected the offer. Id.

at 700-01. We held that the unaccepted offer of judgment under Rule 68 did not 

render the named plaintiff’s complaint moot. Id. at 704. 

The facts in the instant case are the same in all relevant respects. 

Accordingly, based on Buccaneers Limited, HDC’s offer of judgment did not 

render Barr’s complaint moot. We therefore REVERSE the order of dismissal for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and REMAND for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

 1

 HDC argues that Barr waived any argument concerning mootness by not raising it in his 

opposition to the motion to dismiss. We disagree because “we have an independent obligation to 

assure ourselves of the justiciability of a controversy under Article III.” Doe v. Wooten, 747 

F.3d 1317, 1322 n.3 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

Case: 14-13138 Date Filed: 01/29/2015 Page: 3 of 3