Etta Scott v. Westlake Services LLC
740 F.3d 1124
7th Cir.
2014
Check Treatment
Docket
Case Information

*1 Before M ANION , R OVNER , and H AMILTON , Circuit Judges. H AMILTON Circuit Judge.

Ettа Scott filed suit on behalf of herself and a putative class alleging that defendant Westlake Services LLC repeatedly called her in violation of the Tele- phone Consumеr Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”). Before Scott moved to certify a plaintiff class, Westlake offered to pay Scott the full statutory damages for any calls that violated the TCPA. Scott did nоt accept the offer. The district court then held that the offer rendered Scott’s case moot and entered final judgment, but retained jurisdiction over post- judgment discovery in the case. Scott appeals, and we reverse. I. Factual and Procedural Background

Scott filed her first amended complaint (the operative complaint in the case) on January 17, 2013. The complaint allеged that Westlake repeatedly called her cell phone using an automated dialer in violation of the TCPA. Scott sought for herself and a putative class: (1) statutory damages of $500 for each negligent violation of the Act and $1500 for each inten- tional violation of the Act, (2) injunctive relief, and (3) attorney fees. She did not immediately move for class certification.

On February 5, 2013, Westlake sent Scott’s attorney an email with a settlement offer. Westlake offered to pay Scott $1500 (the statutory maximum) “for each and every dialer- genеrated telephone call made to plaintiff.” The email went on to say that while Scott had identified twenty dialer-generated calls made to her phone, Westlake beliеved there were only six, and suggested further discussion to “resolve the discrepancy.” Westlake also agreed to pay Scott all costs that she would recover if she prevailed in her lawsuit, and agreed to the entry of an injunction prohibiting Westlake from calling her again without her express permission. The email concluded by warning Scott that, in Westlake’s view, its оffer rendered her case moot. The next day, Scott moved for class certification and declined the settlement offer. She explained that there was “a significant controversy” concerning how many dialer-gener- ated calls Westlake had placed to her phone, so the offer was inadequate and did not render her case moot.

Westlake then moved to dismiss Scott’s suit as moot. The district court granted the motion, finding that Westlake had offered Scott everything she sought in her complaint thus depriving the court of subject mattеr jurisdiction. The court recognized, however, that there was sufficient uncertainty about the actual terms of the settlement offer that it would need to retain jurisdiction to enforcе compliance with the offer. The court directed the parties to conduct discovery to deter- mine just how many dialer-generated calls Scott had actually received from Westlake so that the amount of Westlake’s check to Scott could be calculated. In the court’s view, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America , 511 U.S. 375 (1994), authorized this procedure as long as the judgment incorporated the settlement offer. Scott appeals the dismissal and the district court’s retention of jurisdiction under .

II. Analysis

Before turning to the substance of Scott’s claims, we must first determine the basis of our jurisdiction over this appeal. Post-judgment discovery is ongoing in the district court, and that court may issue further rulings to decide discovery disputes and enforce the settlement offer. Dеspite these continued ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‍proceedings, the district court entered on June 6, 2013 a final judgment that resolved all claims. Upon entry of that final judgment, Scott could not risk waiting for further action. We conclude that we have jurisdiction over the appeal from the final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. On to the merits.

4

Under this circuit’s case law, an unaccepted settlement offer can render the plaintiff’s case moot if it gives the plaintiff everything she requested. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp. , 662 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2011); Gates v. City of Chicago , 623 F.3d 389, 413 (2010). These cases reason that once “the defendant offers to satisfy the plaintiff’s entire demand, thеre is no dispute over which to litigate” and thus no controversy to resolve. Rand v. Monsanto Co. , 926 F.3d 596, 597–98 (7th Cir. 1991). In other words, “You cannot persist in suing after you’ve won.” Greisz v. Household Bank (Ill.), N.A. , 176 F.3d 1012, 1015 (7th Cir. 1999). [1]

On the other hand, if the defendant offers to pay only what it thinks might be due, the offer does not render the plaintiff’s case moot. Gates v. Towery , 430 F.3d 429, 431–32 (7th Cir. 2005). In that situation, the plaintiff still has a stake in the action because she may obtain additional relief if she prevаils. The plaintiff’s stake is negated only if no additional relief is possible. Id. To hold otherwise would imply that any reason- able settlement offer moots the plaintiff’s ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‍case or that long-shоt claims are moot rather than unlikely to succeed. Id. at 432. “That’s not the way things work: A bad theory (whether of liability or of damages) does not undermine federal jurisdic- tion.” Id.

Westlake did not offеr to satisfy Scott’s entire demand. Westlake offered to pay only for dialer-generated calls and acknowledged only six such calls, significantly fewer than the twenty or more calls Scott identified in her complaint, translat- ing to a difference of at least $21,000 in damages due. That is not an unconditional offer to pay the plaintiff the entirety of her demand. Whethеr a call is “dialer-generated” within the meaning of the TCPA is a hotly contested issue on the merits. See, e.g. Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster , Inc., 569 F.3d 946, 950 (9th Cir. 2009) (reversing grant of summary judgment because of factual dispute on whether defendants hаd used automated dialer in violation of TCPA). Westlake’s offer amounted to telling Scott it was willing to pay for all calls that in its estima- tion (or perhaps that of a court) violated thе TCPA. Under the sound reasoning of Gates v. Towery , such an offer could not render Scott’s case moot.

Westlake argues, however, that Damasco v. Clearwire Corp. 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), requires affirmance. We disagree. In Damasco , the defendant offered to pay the plaintiff maxi- mum statutory damages “for each text message received from Clearwire.” Id. at 893. That offer gave thе plaintiff everything he requested because it offered to pay the plaintiff for every message he had received from the defendant. All that re- mained to be done was to сount the number of calls and write the plaintiff a check. Here, by contrast, Westlake offered to pay for each dialer-generated call Scott received, and disputed the number of qualifying calls. The fact that Westlake was willing to pay for “each and every” such message ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‍does not change the fact that Westlake was offering to pay only the amount it felt might be due. That was not enough to moot Scott’s case.

Our conclusion is bolstered by the district court’s order to conduct post-judgment discovery to determine how many qualifying calls Scott received. Post-judgment discovery is unusual to begin with. The idea of post-judgment discovery into a disputed issue on the merits of the case to figure out how to apply an unaccepted settlement offer that supposedly rendered the case moot is difficult to grasp. Where further discovery relevant to the merits and possibly even future rulings are needed to determinе how much the defendant actually offered to pay, a live controversy still exists between the parties.

The district court concluded, and Westlake argues, that Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America , 511 U.S. 375 (1994) , authorized the сourt to retain jurisdiction over the post- judgment discovery proceedings. Because we conclude that Scott’s case is not moot, we need not decide whether Kokkonen authorized this procedure. We note, however, that Kokkonen involved a settlement agreement rather than an unaccepted settlement offer, and that the parties’ post-judgment dispute did not involve the merits of the underlying case. Kokkonen 511 U.S. at 376–77. Supervising pоst-judgment discovery into the merits of the underlying case is quite different from determining, as in , whether one party must return a file to the other. Id. at 377. The difference between the disagree- ment in and the disagreement ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‍in this case is a further indication that Scott’s case is not moot.

One somewhat sticky puzzle remains to be resolved: how should the district court proceed on remаnd, given that discovery is already taking place as part of the post-judgment proceedings? We conclude that the district court should simply revive the original case and convert the post-judgment discovery into discovery on the merits of the underlying case, including full discovery if appropriate. Scott is also free to renew her motion for class certification, which was denied when her case was declared moot.

We REVERSE the judgment dismissing the case as moot and REMAND to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Notes

[1] Sincе most plaintiffs are happy to have defendants surrender, this tactic is most controversial as a means to short-circuit a looming class action or as a means to avoid paying attorney fees and costs in light of Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources , 532 U.S. 598 (2001). The circuits are split on whether an unaccepted settlement offer can render a case moot. Compare, e.g. Diaz v. First Am. Home Buyers Protection Corp. , 732 F.3d 948, 950 (9th Cir. 2013) (no), with Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A. , 676 F.3d 365, 370 (4th Cir. 2012) (yes). The Supreme ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‍Court granted certiorari in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk , 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013), to resolve this split but ultimately decided that case on narrowеr grounds. The circuit split remains, but there are reasons to question our approach to the problem. See id. at 1533–34 (Kagan, J., dissenting). Scott does not challenge our circuit’s view, so we will continue to await a resolution of the split.

Read the detailed case summary