Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 13-16816 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseFlorencio Pacleb filed a class action complaint against Allstate, alleging that he received unsolicited automated calls to his cell phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227. Allstate deposited $20,000 in full settlement of Pacleb’s individual monetary claims in an escrow account “pending entry of a final District Court order or judgment directing the escrow agent to pay the tendered funds to Pacleb, requiring Allstate to stop sending non-emergency telephone calls and short message service messages to Pacleb in the future and dismissing this action as moot.” The court affirmed the district court's order denying Allstate’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that, even if the district court entered judgment affording Pacleb complete relief on his individual claims for damages and injunctive relief, mooting those claims, Pacleb would still be able to seek class certification under Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., which remains good law under Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co. The court also concluded that, even if Pitts were not binding, and Allstate could moot the entire action by mooting Pacleb’s individual claims for damages and injunctive relief, those individual claims are not now moot, and the court will not direct the district court to moot them by entering judgment on them before Pacleb has had a fair opportunity to move for class certification.
Court Description: Mootness / Offers of Judgment. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as moot following defendant’s unaccepted offer of judgment on a plaintiff’s individual claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The panel held that the case was not moot because first, even if the district court entered judgment affording the plaintiff complete relief on his individual claims for damages and injunctive relief, mooting those claims, he would still be able to seek class certification under Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011), which remains good law pursuant to Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2014), aff’d, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016). Second, even if Pitts were not binding, and the defendant could moot the entire action by mooting the plaintiff’s individual claims, the individual claims were not yet moot because the plaintiff had not yet actually received relief. The panel held that it would not direct the district court to enter judgment, over the plaintiff’s objections, on his individual claims when he had not yet had a fair opportunity to move for class certification. CHEN V. ALLSTATE INS. CO. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.