Schoshinksi v. City of Los Angeles
9 Cal. App. 5th 780
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Two contemporaneous class actions challenged Los Angeles’ collection of a "solid resource fee" (SRF) from multi‑unit dwellings that did not receive City trash service: Chakhalyan (settled and approved June 2012) and Cunningham (later pursued).
- Chakhalyan settlement/judgment required full reimbursement of SRF overcharges (Oct 28, 2007–Feb 27, 2012), prospective injunctive measures to halt/reimburse future overcharges, and retained court jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
- Cunningham was dismissed on summary judgment as precluded by Chakhalyan; the court allowed Cunningham to amend to add two new plaintiffs, Schoshinski and Ballatore, who alleged post‑class‑period overcharges.
- Before the new plaintiffs were added, the City had credited their DWP accounts (as part of compliance with Chakhalyan) and had credited some 852 other accounts between Jan–June 2013.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding the new plaintiffs’ individual claims were moot (they had received all available relief) and the “pick‑off” exception did not apply because credits were mandatory under the Chakhalyan judgment rather than voluntary offers targeted to the named plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ individual claims are moot | Schoshinski/Ballatore: not moot — they did not receive all relief demanded and did not learn of credits until after joining; credits may have been targeted after litigation began | City: moot — plaintiffs already received full monetary and injunctive relief via Chakhalyan credits and ongoing injunction, so no further relief possible | Held: Claims are moot; plaintiffs received all effectual relief available |
| Whether Chakhalyan’s injunctive provisions cover plaintiffs and future overcharges | Plaintiffs: Chakhalyan applies only to class members and monitoring language is limited; City’s credits may have been triggered by litigation threats, not routine monitoring | City: Chakhalyan created a continuing, prospective obligation to stop and reimburse overcharges for any persons identified; credits complied with that judgment | Held: Chakhalyan injunction is prospective, binding on City, and covers persons identified (broadly interpreted), so it supplied the injunctive relief plaintiffs sought |
| Whether the “pick‑off” exception to mootness applies | Plaintiffs: City may have "picked off" representatives by crediting accounts after learning of litigation, so exception preserves their standing to seek class relief | City: No pick‑off — credits were mandatory under Chakhalyan, not voluntary payments aimed solely at mooting representative plaintiffs | Held: Pick‑off exception does not apply because relief was compulsory under an existing judgment and was provided broadly, not solely to silence representatives |
| Whether plaintiffs retain a continuing economic stake (shift fees/costs) to avoid mootness | Plaintiffs: still have an interest in shifting attorneys’ fees/costs to the class, preserving incentive to pursue class claims | City: interest in fees/costs insufficient to create a continuing personal stake once individual claims are fully satisfied | Held: Interest in shifting fees/costs insufficient to avoid mootness; Roper/Lewis line of authority limits that theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Geraghty v. United States Parole Comm’n, 445 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1980) (named plaintiff may continue appeal challenging class certification despite individual change in status in certain contexts)
- Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (U.S. 1980) (defendant’s resolution of individual claims after class certification denial does not necessarily preclude appeal of certification denial)
- La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn., 5 Cal.3d 864 (Cal. 1971) (courts should guard against defendant tactics that "pick off" class representatives and frustrate class action objectives)
- Watkins v. Wachovia Corp., 172 Cal.App.4th 1576 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (voluntary settlement by plaintiff can defeat standing to represent class)
- Wallace v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 183 Cal.App.4th 1390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (distinguishes compulsory regulatory consent orders from voluntary pick‑off payments; pick‑off analysis depends on scope of remedial order)
- Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1990) (interest in attorney’s fees insufficient to create Article III case or controversy when the underlying claim is moot)
- Premium Plus Partners v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 648 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 2011) (applying Lewis to reject fee‑shifting theory to avoid mootness in putative class action)
- Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2016) (individual claim moot when plaintiff received all relief that could be obtained via further litigation)
- Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central, 43 Cal.4th 201 (Cal. 2008) (summary judgment and standing reviewed de novo)