Opinion
CAUSE NO. 1:15CV126-LG-RHW
01-15-2016
DANNY DANTZLER on behalf of himself and those similarly situated PLAINTIFF v. B&D CONTRACTING, INC., d/b/a B&D CONTRACTING MS 2013, WAYNE DAVIS and JOHN BOWIE DEFENDANTS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion [35] to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, filed by the Defendants after the Court's entry of a Final Judgment. There has been no response filed. The Court finds that the Motion to Dismiss is moot.
The Plaintiff filed proof of his acceptance of Defendants' Offer of Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 on October 30, 2015. (ECF No. 33). Once notice of the offer and acceptance is filed with the clerk of the court, the clerk is required to enter judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a). The court generally has no discretion whether or not to enter the judgment, as a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment is usually considered self-executing. Ramming v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 390 F.3d 366, 370-71 (5th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases). Accordingly, a Final Judgment was entered in this case on November 2, 2015. (ECF No. 34).
Plaintiff's acceptance of the Offer of Judgment mooted his claims. See Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913, 919 (5th Cir. 2008). "'[I]f a case has been rendered moot, a federal court has no constitutional authority to resolve the issues that it presents.'" Id. at 915 (quoting Envtl. Conservation Org. v. City of Dallas, 529 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008)). Therefore, leaving aside the fact that final judgment has entered and this case is closed, the Court may not adjudicate the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss because the issues presented are moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendants' Motion [35] to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 15th day of January 2016.
/s/_________
Louis Guirola, Jr.
Chief U.S. District Judge