Per Curiam
Debt collector Midland purportedly called Doyle between 21 and 28 times in 2011. No call was intended for Doyle. Repeatedly, the caller refused to answer and hung up after Doyle asked for identification of the entity contacting him. Midland sought judgment on the pleading in Doyle's lawsuit seeking damages for its alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Doyle did not accept Midland's $1,011 Offer of Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Midland sought dismissal of Doyle's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction arguing that its Rule 68 offer in an amount exceeding the recovery available to Doyle rendered the case moot under Article III. District court granted dismissal after hearing, at which Doyle refused Midland's offer of $1,011. Second Circuit affirmed judgment. Midland's $1,011 offer—made before the district court—was the full amount of relief that Doyle sought. Second Circuit noted that an offer need not comply with Rule 68 in order to render a case moot under Article III. Thus Doyle's refusal to settle the case in exchange for Midland's offer of $1,011—plus costs, disbursements and attorney fees—was sufficient ground to dismiss Doyle's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
