Radha Geismann, M.D. v. ZocDoc, Inc., 112718 FED2, 17-2692
|Opinion Judge:||SACK, CIRCUIT JUDGE.|
|Party Name:||Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZocDoc, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee, John Does 1-10, Defendants.|
|Attorney:||GLENN L. HARA (David M. Oppenheim, on the brief), Anderson + Wanca, Rolling Meadows, Illinois, for Plaintiff-Appellant. BLAINE C. KIMREY (Charles J. Nerko, Vedder Price P.C., New York, New York, Bryan K. Clark, on the brief), Vedder Price P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for Defendant-Appellee. Adina H. ...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: Sack and Raggi, Circuit Judges, and Gardephe, District Judge.|
|Case Date:||November 27, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
Argued: May 14, 2018
Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C., appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Louis L. Stanton, Judge) dismissing its putative class action suit against the defendant ZocDoc, Inc., alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. ZocDoc first attempted to render Geismann's action moot by submitting a settlement offer that would afford Geismann complete relief for its individual claims. Geismann rejected the offer. The district court subsequently entered judgment in Geismann's favor in the amount and under the terms of the unaccepted offer and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that it had become moot. We vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. ZocDoc again attempted to moot Geismann's action by depositing $20, 000, in full settlement of Geismann's individual claims, in the district court's registry. The district court concluded that ZocDoc's action successfully mooted Geismann's individual claim and putative class action, and accordingly entered judgment in Geismann's favor and dismissed the action. We conclude that the district court should not have entered judgment based on ZocDoc's deposit, nor should it have dismissed Geismann's action on that basis. Accordingly, the district court's judgment is:
VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
GLENN L. HARA (David M. Oppenheim, on the brief), Anderson + Wanca, Rolling Meadows, Illinois, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
BLAINE C. KIMREY (Charles J. Nerko, Vedder Price P.C., New York, New York, Bryan K. Clark, on the brief), Vedder Price P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for Defendant-Appellee.
Adina H. Rosenbaum, Scott L. Nelson, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Public Citizen, Inc., in support of Plaintiff-Appellant.
Brian Melendez, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Amicus Curiae ACA International, in support of Defendant- Appellee.
Before: Sack and Raggi, Circuit Judges, and Gardephe, District Judge. [*]
SACK, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. ("Geismann") filed a class action complaint against ZocDoc, Inc. ("ZocDoc") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that it1 received unsolicited telecopies (colloquially and hereinafter "faxes") from ZocDoc in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. After Geismann filed the complaint and moved for class certification, ZocDoc made a settlement offer to Geismann as to its individual claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68; Geismann rejected the offer. The district court (Louis L. Stanton, Judge) dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc, Inc., 60 F.Supp.3d 404 (S.D.N.Y 2014) ("Geismann I"), reasoning that the rejected offer rendered the entire action moot. The court therefore entered judgment in favor of Geismann. Geismann appealed. Relying in large part on the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663 (2016), we vacated the judgment and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. See Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc, Inc., 850 F.3d 507 (2d Cir. 2017) ("Geismann II").
On remand, ZocDoc attempted to use another procedural rule to settle Geismann's individual claims: ZocDoc requested and obtained leave from the district court to deposit funds in the court's registry pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67. The funds that ZocDoc deposited with the court represented what ZocDoc regarded as the maximum possible damages Geismann could receive for its individual TCPA claims. The district court agreed with ZocDoc that its deposit mooted Geismann's individual claim, and accordingly entered judgment in favor of Geismann and dismissed what remained of the action. Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc, Inc., 268 F.Supp.3d 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ("Geismann III"). We conclude that this was error and return the case to the district court again for further proceedings.
Geismann, a Missouri professional corporation, alleges that it received from ZocDoc, a Delaware corporation, two unsolicited faxes advertising a "patient matching service" for doctors. See Corrected First Amended Class Action Complaint ¶¶ 8-9, at Joint Appendix ("J.A.") 3 & Exhibits A and B to the Corrected First Amended Class Action Complaint, at J.A. 17-18. Both faxes stated, in a legend at the bottom of the fax, that if the recipient wished to "stop receiving faxes," he or she could call the domestic telephone number provided. See Exhibits A and B to the Corrected First Amended Class Action Complaint, at J.A. 17-18.
In 2014, Geismann filed this putative class action against ZocDoc in Missouri state court, alleging that these faxes were unsolicited advertisements in violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227. The TCPA prohibits, inter alia, the use of "any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement, unless" the sender and recipient have an "established business relationship," the recipient volunteered its fax number directly to the sender or through voluntary participation in a directory or other public source, or the fax meets specified notice requirements. Id. § 227(b)(1)(C). The TCPA defines "unsolicited advertisement" as "any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise." Id. § 227(a)(5). Geismann sought between $500 and $1, 500 in statutory damages for each alleged TCPA violation, an injunction prohibiting ZocDoc from sending similar faxes in the future, and costs.2
On the same day that it filed its complaint in state court, Geismann filed a separate motion for class certification pursuant to Missouri law. Geismann defined the proposed class as "[a]ll persons who on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising [a] patient matching service for doctors by or on behalf of Defendant." Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc, Inc., No. 14-cv-7009 (S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 5, at 2.
On March 13, 2014, ZocDoc removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Two weeks later, ZocDoc made an...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP