It’s Not Personal: Ninth Circuit Denies Putative Class Representative’s Appeal As Moot

In Campion v. Old Republic Protection Company, Inc., No. 12-56784, (Dec. 31, 2014) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a putative class representative's appeal was moot because he had no personal stake in the case after voluntarily settling his individual claims. Douglas Campion brought a class action against Old Republic asserting causes of action arising out of Old Republic's allegedly arbitrary denial of claims made by him on a home warranty policy. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied Campion's motion to certify the class and granted Old Republic's motion for partial summary judgment on Campion's claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Campion then settled his individual claims with Old Republic, and the parties agreed to dismiss without prejudice any class action claims under the California Unfair Competition Law. However, in the stipulation for dismissal, the parties agreed that Campion retained his right to appeal the district court's rulings on the putative class claims. Campion subsequently appealed the district court's orders regarding class certification.

The Ninth Circuit did not reach the merits of any of the district court's orders. Instead, the court held that Campion's appeal was moot because he no longer had a personal stake in class certification. The court stated that it made no difference that Campion expressly retained his right to appeal the putative class claims in the settlement. Citing Narouz v. Charter Commc'ns, LLC, 591 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2010), the court reasoned that the test for whether an appeal is moot after the putative class representative voluntarily settles his individual claims is whether the class representative retains a personal stake in the case, and the personal stake must be a financial interest in class certification.

Applying the Narouz framework, the court held that Campion's appeal was moot because no matter what happened on appeal, he would not get a penny more. He did not stand to gain further compensation for his claims because he received their full value under the terms of his individual settlement. The settlement included his attorney's fees and costs as well. Thus, he no longer had...