PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

ROSE JACOBSON, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant/ 

 Cross-Appellee, 

v. 

CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES, INC., a 

Delaware corporation, 

 Defendant-Appellee/ 

 Cross-Appellant. 

Nos. 14-1425 & 14-1454 

_______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado 

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-03307-WYD-MJW)

_________________________________ 

Submitted on the briefs:*

Scott L. Nelson and Allison M. Zieve, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, 

District of Columbia; David M. Larson, Englewood, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant. 

Joseph J. Lico and Steven J. Wienczkowski, Adam L. Plotkin, P.C., Denver, Colorado, 

for Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

March 10, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-1454 Document: 01019584529 Date Filed: 03/10/2016 Page: 1 
2 

KELLY, Circuit Judge. 

_________________________________ 

Rose Jacobson appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of her 

claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Credit Control 

Services (CCS) cross-appeals the fact that the dismissal was without prejudice 

instead of with prejudice. Ms. Jacobson originally sought both statutory and actual 

damages under the FDCPA. CCS made an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 68 for $1,001, one dollar more than the statutory damages sought, 

plus attorneys’ fees and costs. Ms. Jacobson did not accept and the offer lapsed 

under the Rules. Several months later, Ms. Jacobson filed a notice waiving her claim 

to actual damages. CCS moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the offer of 

judgment would have accorded her the full amount of statutory damages she could 

recover, rendering the action moot. 

The district court agreed, finding that CCS offered Jacobson “an amount that 

exceeds what she can recover pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a).” Aplt. App. at 66a. 

On that basis, the district court dismissed the action without prejudice and awarded 

costs to CCS. Thus, on appeal, the central issue is whether an unaccepted offer of 

judgment under Rule 68 can moot a plaintiff’s claim to relief, thereby depriving the 

district court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Coincidentally, the Supreme Court 

granted certiorari to decide this exact issue in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 

136 S. Ct. 663 (2016). Accordingly, we held the matter in abatement pending the 

Appellate Case: 14-1454 Document: 01019584529 Date Filed: 03/10/2016 Page: 2 
3 

Court’s decision.1

 On January 20, 2016, the Court decided Gomez, holding that an 

unaccepted settlement offer does not, in fact, render a plaintiff’s case moot because 

the parties remain just as adverse as they were at the outset of litigation without an 

accepted settlement offer. 136 S. Ct. at 670–72. 

We asked the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing whether Gomez

answers the question posed by Ms. Jacobson’s appeal. Both parties agree that it 

does. Both parties also agree that CCS’s cross-appeal is moot in light of Gomez. We 

therefore vacate the judgment and assessment of costs, and remand for continued 

proceedings. 

 1

 We also held the matter in abatement based on the Court’s grant of certiorari 

in Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 742 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 

1892 (2015). The issue in Spokeo is whether Congress may confer standing upon a 

plaintiff who suffers no cognizable harm, and who therefore could not otherwise 

invoke federal jurisdiction, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare 

violation of a federal statute. Pet. for Writ of Cert. at i, Spokeo, No. 13-1339 (May 1, 

2014). We agree with the parties that Gomez is more germane to the issue before us 

and that we need not wait for the Spokeo decision. 

Appellate Case: 14-1454 Document: 01019584529 Date Filed: 03/10/2016 Page: 3