Ninth Circuit Panel Weighs In on Critical Issue Left Open by Campbell-Ewald
Time 2 Minute Read
Categories: Class Action

We previously reported on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), wherein a 6-3 majority held that “an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case.” As part of its decision, however, the Supreme Court expressly left open one critical question: whether a defendant can moot a case by tendering—as opposed to simply offering—complete relief to the plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit has now weighed in on that issue and has answered that question in the negative.

In Chen v. Allstate, No. 13-16816 (9th Cir.), a three-judge panel specifically addressed whether a class action would be rendered moot “if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff’s individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount” – i.e., the very question left open by the Supreme Court in Campbell-Ewald. The Ninth Circuit answered no:

  • The panel acknowledged that the judgment to which the defendant, Allstate, had consented would have afforded the plaintiff complete relief on his individual claims for damages and injunctive relief.
  • However, the panel held that the plaintiff did not “actually receive” complete relief on his claims; thus, according to the panel, the plaintiff’s individual claims were not moot. Stated differently, a mere offer or tender of complete relief would not do.
  • The panel further refused to direct the district court to enter judgment on the plaintiff’s individual claims before he had a “fair opportunity to move for class certification.”
  • The panel similarly held that, even if the plaintiff’s individual claims otherwise were fully satisfied, he nonetheless could continue to seek class certification under prior Ninth Circuit precedent, Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011), which, according to the panel, remains good law.

In the end, the panel seemingly moved the goalpost even further for defendants on this issue. A plaintiff’s individual claim cannot be mooted unless he or she actually receives complete relief on the claim; even a tender of complete relief will not do. Moreover, even if a plaintiff’s individual claim could be mooted over his or her objections, he or she would be entitled to a “fair opportunity” to seek class certification nonetheless.

  • Partner

    Neil is head of the firm’s antitrust and consumer protection practice. Neil’s complex litigation practice focuses on class action and other litigation in the areas of, privacy and cybersecurity, antitrust, health care ...

  • Partner

    Jason is a class action litigator who represents innovators and disruptors at the complex intersection of the law and novel technologies. He focuses his practice on class action defense, mass arbitration, and other complex ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court decision determined that documents created by a criminal defendant using AI and subsequently shared with legal counsel were not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In USA v. Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York compelled the disclosure of 31 documents created with Anthropic’s Claude. This order was issued despite the defendant including information from counsel in the AI tool’s input and later providing the resulting outputs to his attorneys. The ruling offers early judicial perspective on privilege concerns involving AI-generated materials, an area where case law remains sparse.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court ruling held that AI-generated documents prepared by a defendant and later shared with legal counsel were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Time 1 Minute Read

On November 17, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Commissioner Melissa Holyoak has resigned her post, bringing the total number of vacant commissioner seats to three.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page