In Cabala v. Crowley, 736 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2013) (No. 12-3757), plaintiff sued defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Two months after the complaint was filed, defendant offered to settle the matter for the maximum amount of statutory damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be determined by the court.  The parties, however, could not agree on the form of the settlement, including whether the settlement would include a judgment, and the litigation continued.  After subsequent discovery and litigation over the amount of fees, the court ordered defendant to pay statutory damages plus all fee amounts requested by plaintiff.  On appeal, defendant argued that his settlement offer rendered the case moot and he should not be liable for any portion of the fees incurred after the offer was made.  The Second Circuit disagreed, holding that an unaccepted offer of settlement for the full amount of damages does not, in and of itself, moot a case.  Rather, if the plaintiff rejects such an offer, the defendant must then either provide a formal Rule 68 offer of judgment, or move the court for entry of judgment in the full amount, which under governing precedent should be entered as a matter of law.  The case is mooted, and ripe for disposition, only after defendant invokes one of those procedures.  Because defendant here pursued neither – and instead contended that the settlement should not include a judgment – his unaccepted settlement offer did not relieve him of the obligation to pay subsequently incurred fees and costs.