On June 11, 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in its decision in Hrivnak v. NCO Portfolio Management, Inc. that an FRCP 68 offer of judgment does not moot a case when it is less than the full relief that the plaintiff is seeking.

Hrivnak sued several debt management companies and a law firm in Ohio state court for claims related to his credit card debt. He sought damages in excess of $25,000 and declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals. After the case was removed to federal court, the defendants made an offer of judgment under Rule 68 for $7,000 in damages and reasonable costs and fees. Hrivnak rejected the offer. The defendants argued that the offer mooted the case and eliminated the plaintiff's Article III standing. The district court rejected that argument, but certified the issue for interlocutory appeal, which the Sixth Circuit permitted.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the $7,000 offered was far short of the damages sought and did not address the plaintiff's claims for equitable relief. In order to moot a case, an offer of judgment must satisfy the plaintiff's "entire demand." The defendants argued that the plaintiff would have been unable to recover everything he sought under the relevant statutes. The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument, holding that an amount that the defendant deems to be appropriate does not suffice. The offer must give the plaintiff everything he asks for.

The Sixth Circuit reasoned that the defendants confused Article III standing requirements and the merits of a claim. While a standing issue might require dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, the weakness of a plaintiff's claims requires a dismissal on the merits. The strength of the defendant's argument about the plaintiff's likelihood of success is irrelevant. A Rule 68 offer must satisfy all of the plaintiff's claims in order to moot the case, even if some do not seem meritorious.