Richard Chen v. Allstate Insurance Co.
819 F.3d 1136
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Chen and Florencio Pacleb filed a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) alleging automated, unsolicited calls to their cell phones; Chen accepted Allstate’s Rule 68 offer but Pacleb did not.
- Allstate offered Rule 68 judgments to the named plaintiffs and later deposited $20,000 into an escrow account conditioned on entry of a final judgment awarding Pacleb individual relief and dismissing the case as moot.
- The district court denied Allstate’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, relying on Pitts v. Terrible Herbst to allow a would-be class representative to pursue class certification even if individual relief has been satisfied.
- Allstate appealed, invoking Campbell‑Ewald (which held an unaccepted settlement offer does not moot a case) and asking this Court to order entry of judgment and dismissal based on the escrow deposit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held (1) Allstate’s proposed judgment would afford complete individual relief, but (2) Pacleb has not actually received that relief (so his individual claims are not yet moot), and (3) even if they were, Pitts remains controlling in this circuit so class-certification rights preserve jurisdiction; moreover the court will not direct entry of judgment over Pacleb’s objection before he has a fair opportunity to seek class certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allstate’s proposed judgment/escrow affords complete relief on Pacleb’s individual claims | Pacleb: lack of admission of liability and narrow injunction mean relief is incomplete | Allstate: agreed judgment and escrowed funds give full monetary and injunctive relief | Court: judgment would afford complete relief (admission not required; injunction adequate) |
| Whether Pacleb’s individual claims are moot now because of the escrow/deposit | Pacleb: he has not received any relief, so claims are live | Allstate: deposit + consent judgment should moot individual claims | Court: not moot — relief must be actually received; escrow retained by Allstate unless court dismisses case |
| Whether the court should be directed to enter judgment over Pacleb’s objection to moot the case before class-certification opportunity | Pacleb: directing judgment would deny fair chance to move for class certification | Allstate: court may enter judgment to avoid litigation when defendant surrenders relief | Court: will not direct entry; Campbell‑Ewald requires a would‑be class rep be given a fair opportunity to seek certification |
| Whether Pitts remains good law after Genesis Healthcare/Gomez/Campbell‑Ewald | Pacleb: Pitts should preserve class-certification rights | Allstate: Genesis undermines Pitts; class claims shouldn’t preserve jurisdiction | Court: Pitts remains binding in Ninth Circuit (Gomez controls), so class certification rights survive satisfaction of individual claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (an unaccepted settlement offer does not moot a plaintiff’s case; would‑be class reps must get a fair opportunity to seek certification)
- Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (named plaintiff can seek class certification even if individual claim is satisfied; protects against defendant "picking off")
- Gomez v. Campbell‑Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2014) (held Pitts remains viable in Ninth Circuit post‑Genesis Healthcare)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013) (addressed mootness in FLSA collective action context; discussed ‘‘inherently transitory’’ reasoning)
- Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) (class lacks independent status until certified; relevance to class‑certification timing)
- Deposit Guaranty Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980) (discussed effect of satisfaction of individual claims on class actions)
- U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) (availability of limited appeal of class‑certification denial)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721 (2013) (a covenant not to sue can moot a claim even without admission of liability)