
    Scott BARR, DDS, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL DENTAL SUPPLY CO., a Florida corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-11804.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Dec. 5, 2014.
    Scott David Owens, Patrick Christopher Crotty, Law Office of Scott D. Owens, P.A., Hallandale, FL, Mark S. Fistos, Steven R. Jaffe, Seth Lehrman, Gabriel Fernando Zambrano, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehman, PL, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Michael Resis, Eric Samore, Yesha Su-taria, Warren R. Wilkosz, Smithamundsen, LLC, Chicago, IL, Timothy Hartley, Hart-ley Law Offices, PLC, Fort Lauderdale, FL, David D. Lin, Justin Mercer, Lewis & Lin, LLC, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendants Appellee.
    Before WILLIAM PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Steve C. Jones, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

This appeal presents the issue whether a putative class action becomes moot when a defendant offers a judgment in favor of the only named plaintiff and putative class representative. Scott Barr, DDS, filed a putative class action against International Dental Supply Company, for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. Before Barr moved for-class certification, International Dental made an offer of judgment, see Fed. R.Civ.P. 68, for the maximum monetary damages for Barr’s individual cause of action, an injunction to prevent future violations of the Act, and an entry of a judgment. After Barr did not accept the offer, International Dental moved to dismiss the complaint as moot. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The district court granted that motion. Based on our intervening precedent in Jeffrey Stein, D.D.S., M.S.D., P.A. v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership, we reverse and remand. No. 13-15417 (11th Cir. Dec. 1, 2014).

Buccaneers Limited controls this appeal. In Buccaneers Limited, the named plaintiff received an offer of judgment under Rule 68, before he moved for class certification. Buccaneers Limited, No. 13-15417, at *2. The named plaintiff did not accept the offer. Id. We held that the unaccepted offer of judgment under Rule 68, did not render the named plaintiffs complaint moot. Buccaneers Limited, No. 1315417, at *23. Based on that precedent, the offer of judgment in favor of Barr did not render his complaint moot.

We REVERSE the order of dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  