Lorraine Bates v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co, 848 F.3d 1236

Plaintiffs are elderly Oregon policyholders (or their successors) who bought long‑term health‑care insurance from Bankers Life; they alleged delayed/denied claims and sought relief on behalf of three proposed classes.
Second Amended Complaint asserted breach of contract, fraud, intentional misconduct, and violations of Oregon’s financial abuse statute; plaintiffs sought class certification for three classes.
Bankers moved (12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and Rule 23(d)) to dismiss many claims and to strike the class allegations; the breach‑of‑contract claims remained pending.
The district court granted the motion to strike class allegations and dismissed the financial‑abuse claims, concluding class questions required individualized, case‑by‑case analysis and that Rule 23 requirements could not be met.
The district court entered a Rule 54(b) final judgment (at plaintiffs’ unopposed request) so plaintiffs could appeal; plaintiffs appealed the order striking class allegations.
The Ninth Circuit concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the order striking class allegations and certified a question of state law to the Oregon Supreme Court separately.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s order striking class allegations is a final, appealable judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and Rule 54(b)	The order is final; Rule 54(b) entry of final judgment permitted appellate review	An order striking class allegations is interlocutory and not final under § 1291; Rule 54(b) cannot convert a nonfinal order into a final one	Not final; Court lacks jurisdiction under § 1291/Rule 54(b) to review the strike order
Whether the district court’s Rule 54(b) certification was a proper mechanism to appeal the strike order	Rule 54(b) certification made the order final and appealable	Rule 54(b) cannot create finality where § 1291 final‑judgment requirement is lacking	Denied: district court cannot convert interlocutory order into final judgment by Rule 54(b)
Proper avenues for appellate review of an order striking class allegations	(Implicit) Plaintiffs implied Rule 54(b)/§ 1291 sufficed	Only § 1292(b) interlocutory certification or Rule 23(f) petition permit such appeals	Only § 1292(b) or Rule 23(f) are the appropriate procedural routes; plaintiffs did not invoke them, so appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (defines final judgment for § 1291 purposes)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (1956) (Rule 54(b) cannot create finality where none exists under § 1291)
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978) (orders refusing class certification are interlocutory)
United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385 (1977) (discussing class certification and interlocutory nature)
In re Bemis Co., 279 F.3d 419 (7th Cir. 2002) (order striking class allegations is equivalent to denying certification and is interlocutory)
Chevron USA Inc. v. Sch. Bd. Vermilion Par., 294 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of appeal from refusal to certify class)
Plata v. Davis, 329 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003) (identifies § 1292(b) and Rule 23(f) as proper routes to appeal class‑certification orders)
Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1975) (same point on appellate avenues)
Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) (lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time)