Etta Scott v. Westlake Services LLC
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1335
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Etta Scott sued Westlake Services LLC under the TCPA, alleging repeated autodialer calls to her cell phone and seeking statutory damages ($500 negligent / $1500 willful per call), injunctive relief, and fees; she also sought to represent a putative class.
- Westlake emailed a settlement offer to Scott’s counsel offering $1,500 “for each and every dialer-generated telephone call” it had made to Scott, but asserted there were six qualifying calls (Scott alleged ~20).
- Scott declined the offer and moved for class certification the next day, arguing a factual dispute over the number and qualification of calls made the offer inadequate.
- The district court held Scott’s case moot because Westlake’s offer purportedly gave Scott everything she sought, entered final judgment dismissing the suit, but retained jurisdiction to oversee post-judgment discovery to determine how many qualifying calls had occurred.
- Scott appealed the dismissal; the Seventh Circuit considered whether an unaccepted offer that conditions payment on the defendant’s view of which calls qualify can moot a TCPA suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unaccepted settlement offer that proposes payment for "each and every dialer-generated call" moots the plaintiff's case | Scott: Offer is inadequate because Westlake disputes which and how many calls qualify; additional relief remains possible | Westlake: Offer gives Scott everything she sought (statutory damages per qualifying call), so no live controversy remains | Offer did not moot the case — because Westlake limited payment to calls it believed were qualifying and disputed the count, a live dispute remains |
| Whether a defendant’s willingness to pay statutory maximum per qualifying violation can moot the claim when qualification is contested | Scott: Payment limited to defendant’s view of qualifying calls leaves plaintiff with stake in litigation to prove additional violations | Westlake: Willingness to pay statutory maximum per qualifying call equals satisfying plaintiff’s demand | Court: Distinguishes offers that pay for every asserted violation from offers that pay only for violations defendant concedes; only the former can moot a case |
| Whether district court may retain jurisdiction under Kokkonen to supervise post-judgment discovery about the merits after finding the case moot | Scott: Retention here was improper because the case was not moot and the retention concerned merits issues | Westlake/District Court: Kokkonen allows retention to enforce settlement terms and supervise related post-judgment matters | Court: Declined to decide Kokkonen’s application because the case was not moot; noted Kokkonen involved an actual settlement, not an unaccepted offer, and the present post-judgment discovery went to the merits |
| Remedy on appeal given ongoing post-judgment discovery | Scott: Case should be revived and merits discovery proceed; she may renew class motion | Westlake: Dismissal and retained jurisdiction appropriate | Court: Reversed dismissal and remanded; district court should revive the case and convert post-judgment discovery into merits discovery; Scott can renew class certification |
Key Cases Cited
- Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011) (unaccepted offer that unambiguously satisfies the plaintiff’s full demand can render a case moot)
- Gates v. City of Chicago, 623 F.3d 389 (7th Cir. 2010) (defendant’s offer to satisfy entire demand eliminates the live controversy)
- Gates v. Towery, 430 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2005) (offers that reflect defendant’s estimate of liability do not moot claims because plaintiff can obtain additional relief)
- Greisz v. Household Bank (Ill.), N.A., 176 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 1999) (party cannot continue to litigate after obtaining what it sought)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts may retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements under limited circumstances)
- Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009) (dispute over whether equipment qualifies as an automatic telephone dialing system raises factual issues precluding summary judgment)