ORDER

KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's notice of full payment and motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 4), Plaintiff's response in opposition (Doc. 10), and Defendant's reply (Doc. 11). As detailed herein, on or before October 12, 2016, the parties are directed to amend and/or supplement their filings as set out. The matter is set for hearing on October 18, 2016 at 2:30 p.m.

I. Background

On August 1, 2016, Plaintiff Ivan O'Neal ("Plaintiff") filed a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action complaint on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. (Doc 1). Plaintiff sought unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other relief. Id.

On August 26, 2016, Defendants filed notice of full payment and motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, explaining that they denied liability, but had deposited amounts into Plaintiff's bank account representing the full amounts of unpaid compensation and liquidated damages to which he made claim. (Doc. 4). Defendants also stated that they agreed to pay reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the action. Based on this, Defendants claimed Plaintiff's claims were moot and due to be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). (Doc. 4 at 4-5). Plaintiff opposes Defendants' motion, arguing that the matter is not moot as "it is not `impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party'" and that the Plaintiff "has a `concrete interest' in the outcome of the litigation." (Doc. 10 at 9 (internal quotes not attributed in the original)).

II. Analysis

In Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, the Court, in distinguishing a collective action from a class action, held that when a plaintiff's individual FLSA claim is moot1, the collective-action allegations do not keep the suit alive. 133 S.Ct. 1523 (2013). Specifically, the Court held:

Id. at 1529 (2013).

However, whether a Rule 68 offer of judgment for the full amount of the claims moots the plaintiff's case was not address in Genesis. That question was addressed earlier this year, when the United States Supreme Court decided Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, holding that a plaintiff's Rule 23 class action complaint "was not effaced by [Defendant's] unaccepted [Rule 68] offer to satisfy his individual claim." 136 S.Ct. 663, 670 (2016), as revised (Feb. 9, 2016). Defendants allege they have made2 and Plaintiff has declined to accept a Rule 68 offer of judgment. Pursuant to Gomez, an unaccepted offer of judgment that would satisfy a plaintiff's claims does not render the matter moot. Gomez at 670.

But, the Court in Gomez left open the question of how a plaintiff's claim could become moot. In concluding its opinion, the Court observed:

Id. at 672.

Defendants have attempted to effectuate the above quoted hypothetical suggested in Gomez. That is, Defendants have deposited what they claim is the "full amount of plaintiff's claim" into Plaintiff's account. Gomez at 672. They have also offered to pay costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

There are two questions before the Court then: 1) Whether the deposit made into Plaintiff's bank account equals the claimed amounts of unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages; and 2) whether, if the deposit and offer to pay Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorneys' fees fully compensate the Plaintiff, his case is moot.

It appears that Plaintiff does not dispute (or confirm) that his claim for unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages is satisfied. (Doc. 10 at 9). Rather, Plaintiff states that Defendants have not paid costs or attorneys' fees, thus the matter is not moot (Doc. 10 at 9, 14). Before determining whether plaintiff's claim is kept alive based on his claim for attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief, the Court requires clarification whether there is a dispute as to the amount of unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages.

III. Conclusion

Upon consideration of the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file, on or before October 12, 2016, an amended response clarifying whether he has been fully compensated for his claim of unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages. If Plaintiff's position is that Defendants' direct deposit did not fully compensate him for his claimed amounts of unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages, Plaintiff shall state what amounts he claims he is owed for unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages.

This matter is set for hearing October 18, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5A, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, 113 St. Joseph Street, Mobile, Alabama, 36602.

DONE and ORDERED.