N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JUSTIN M AGHEN, Individually and on B e h a lf of All Othe rs Sim ila rly Situa te d, Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt,
v. QUIC KEN LOANS INC .,

De fe nda nt-c ounte r-c la im antAppe lle e . No. 15-55684 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-03840-DM G-FFM
M EM O R ANDUM *

JUSTIN M AGHEN, Individually and on B e h a lf of All Othe rs Sim ila rly Situa te d, Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lle e , v. QUIC KEN LOANS INC .,

De fe nda nt-c ounte r-c la im antAppe lla nt. No. 15-55892 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-03840-DM G-FFM



# FIL ED FEB 23 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Appe a l from the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dolly M
. Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2017 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TALLM AN a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M URPHY, *** Distric t Judge
. Justin M a g he n a

p pe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s ruling tha t Quic ke n Loa

ns did not viola te C a lifornia

Pe n a l C ode se c tion 632.7(a ) whe n it re c orde d two c a lls with M a g he n on Fe b rua

ry 4, 2014, be c a

use M a ghe n c onse nte d to ha v ing thec a lls
re c o rde d. Quic ke n Loa

ns a p p e a ls the distric t c ourt’ s pa rtia l de n ia l of its m otion for
sum m ary judgm e nt on its c ounte rc la im , whic h sought a de c la ration tha t c a lls m a de for “ se rvic e -obse rving” purpose s a re e xe m pt from se c tion 632.7(a

). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of Quic ke n Loa

ns’ m o t ion for sum

m ary judgm e nt on the sole c l a im in M a ghe n’ s c om

pla i nt. M a ghe n did c onse nt to ha ving Quic ke n Loa

n s re c ord the c a lls. W e a lso a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of Quic ke n Loa

n s ’ m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt on Quic ke n Loa ns’ c ounte rc la im ,

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ste phe n Jose p h M urphy III, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion. 2to the e xte nt it sought a de c l aration tha

t M a ghe n c onse nte d to ha ving thec a l ls
re c o rde d. W e dism iss there m a inde r of Quic ke n Loa ns’ c ounte rc la im

a s m oot. 1. Quic ke n Loa

ns did not viola

te se c t ion 632.7(a), be c a

use M a ghe n
c onse nte d to ha

ving theFe b ruary

4, 2014 c a lls re c orde d. C a lifornia Pe na l C ode
se c t ion 632.7(a) punishe s, “ [e ] ve ry pe rson who, without the

c onse nt of a ll pa

rtie s to a c om m unic ation, interc e pts or re c e ive s a nd inte ntiona lly

re c ords . . . a
c om m unic ation” in whic h at le a st one pa rty is using a

“ c e llula r ra dio te le phone ” or
a “ c ordle ss te le phone .” The pla in la ngua ge of the sta

tute m ake s c le ar that, if a ll pa rtie s to the c a ll c onse nt to ha ving thec a l l re c orde d , the re c o rding pa rty doe s not viola te se c t ion 632.7(a). “ A busine ss tha t a d e quat e ly

a dvise s a ll pa

rtie s to a te le phone c a ll, a

t the outse t of the c onve rsation, of its inte nt to re c ord the c a ll [doe s] not viola

te [se c tion 632.7(a

)] .” K e arne y v . Salomon Smith Barne

y , Inc
. , 137 P.3d 914, 930 (C a l. 2006). M a ghe n a dm its tha

t he a gre e d to Le ndingTre e ’ s Te rm s of Use and tha t the Te rm s of Use sta

te d tha t one of Le ndingTre e ’ s “ 200 Ne t work Le nde rs” m ay
c onta c t him

by phone on a

re c orde d line . Wh e n

the Quic ke n Loa

ns e m ploy e e
c a lle d M a ghe n, he im

m e d iate ly inform e d M a ghe n

tha t he worke d for Quic ke n Loa ns a nd wa s c a l ling a

bout there fina

nc ing inquiry M a g he n ha d re c e ntly subm itte d online . This inform ation put M a ghe n on notic e tha t Quic k e n Loa

ns wa s
3one of Le ndingTre e ’ s Ne twork Le nde rs, a nd tha t the c a ll m ight bere c orde d, “ at the outse t of the c o nve rsation.” Se e id . B y sta y ing on theline a fte r le arning this inform at ion, M a g he n de m onstra te d tha t he c o nse nte d to ha

ving thec a lls re c orde d. M ore ove r, during thefirst c a ll, theQuic ke n Loa n s e m ploy e e inform e d M a g he n tha

t “ a ll of [Quic k e n Loa

ns’ ] c a l ls a

re re c orde d for qua l ity

a ssura nc e .” M a g he n re plie d

by sa y ing, “ Oka

y .” Thus, M a g he n wa s inform e d, “ at the outse t of the c onve rsation, of [Quic ke n Loa ns’ ] inte nt to re c ord the c a ll,” se e id. , a nd de m onstra

te d his c onse nt to ha

ving thec a ll re c orde d by

sa y ing, “ Oka

y .” M a ghe n
a lso c onse nte d to ha

ving these c ond c a ll re c orde d, be c a use he wa s inform e d during the first c a ll tha

t a ll of Quic k e n Loa

ns’ c a lls we re re c orde d, he kne w Quic ke n Loa ns wa s the pa

rty c a lling him , a

nd he sta y e d on the line
. 1 2. The re m a inde r of Quic ke n Loa ns’ c ounte rc la im

is dismisse d a s m oot. “ A
c a se be c om e s m oot— and the re fore no longe r a ‘ C a se ’ or ‘ C ontrove rsy ’ for purpose s of Artic le III— ‘ whe n the issue s pre se nte d a re no longe r “ l ive ” or the pa rtie s la c k a

le ga lly c ogniz a b le inte re st in theoutc om e .’ ” Alre ady , LLC v . N ik e , Inc
. , 133 S. C t. 721, 726–27 (2013) (quoting Murphy v . Hunt , 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982)). B e c a

use M a ghe n c onse nte d to ha ving theFe brua

ry 4, 2014 c a lls

1 B e c a use we c onc lude M a ghe n c onse nte d to ha v ing thephone c a lls re c o rde d, we ne e d not re a c h Quic ke n Loa ns’ a lte rnative argum e nt tha t se c tion 632.7 a pplie s only

to third pa

rtie s to a c a ll, a

nd not to known pa

rtie s to a c a ll. 4re c o rde d, the re is no longer a disputeove r whe the r Quic ke n Loa ns viola t e d se c tion 632.7(a ). The re fore , Quic ke n Loa ns no longer ha s a le ga lly c ogniz a ble inte re st in its c o unte rc la im , whic h a sks us to de c la re tha t se c tion 632.7(a

) doe s not a

pply to
c a lls m a de for “ se rvic e -obse rving” purpose s . 2 Wh e re the re is no longer an a c tua l
c ontrove rsy

be twe e n the pa

rtie s, suc h

a de c la ration would be

an a dvisory opinion, whic h the C o nstitution doe s not e m powe r fe de ra l c ourts to issue
. Golde n v . Zw i c k le r , 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969). Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D.

2 This is not a

c a se whe re the “ c a

pa ble of re pe tition, y e t e va ding re vie w” e xc e ption a

pplie s, be c a

use this is not a

c o ntrove rsy

tha t is of “ inhe re ntly lim ite d duration.” Prote c tmarriage .c om-Yes on 8 v . Bow e n , 752 F.3d 827, 836–37 (9th C ir. 2014) (c ita

tions omitte d ). Eve n if this que stion ha s thus fa r e va de d re vie w, “ the re is no risk tha

t future re pe titions of the

c ontrove rsy will ne c e s sa

rily e va de re vie w a s we ll.” Id. at 837. 5