In Jacobson v. Credit Control Services, Inc., 2014 WL 4636449 (D.Colo. 2014), Judge Daniel found that a Defendant’s Rule 68 Offer mooted the FDCPA case.

A majority of circuits have accepted Defendant’s argument that an Offer of Judgment for the full relief to which a plaintiff is entitled may moot a case. See Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc., 639 F.3d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir.2011) (stating that “[w]hile [the Tenth Circuit] has yet to address the question squarely, other circuits have concluded that if a defendant makes an offer of judgment in complete satisfaction of a plaintiff’s claims … the plaintiff’s claims are rendered moot because he lacks a remaining interest in the outcome of the case”); Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., 676 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir.2012); O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., Inc., 575 F.3d 567, 574 (6th Cir.2009); Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913, 915 (5th Cir.2008); Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 342 (3d Cir.2004); Rand v. Monsanto Co., 926 F.2d 596, 598 (7th Cir.1991); contra Diaz v. First Am. Homes Buyers Prot. Corp., 732 F.3d 948, 953–55 (9th Cir.2013).    Given the authority cited above and the Tenth Circuit’s apparent approval of that line of cases, I agree with Defendant’s argument that when an Offer of Judgment unequivocally offers a plaintiff all the relief she sought to obtain, the offer renders the plaintiff’s action moot. See Warren, 676 F.3d at 371; see Lucero, 639 F.3d at 1243. Here, because Plaintiff waived her claim for actual damages (ECF No. 14), I find that Defendant’s unequivocal Offer of Judgment of $1001.00 plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs offered Plaintiff an amount that exceeds what she can recover pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). Thus, Plaintiff’s action is moot and must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Citizens for the Responsible Government State PAC v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, 1182 (10th Cir.2000) (holding that “[a] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome” and “[t]he parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome throughout the case”).