N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TERESA TITUS, a

n individual a

nd a s a re pre se ntative of the c la ss,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. B LUEC HIP FINANC IAL,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-35940

D.C . No. 3:18-c v-05373-R JB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt J. B ry a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm ission De fe rre d Oc tobe r 25, 2019 R e subm itte d Nove m

be r 27, 2019 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : C LIFTON, IKUTA, a nd B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s . Te re sa Titus m ove s to dismiss B l ue C hip Fina n c ia l’ s a ppe a l of the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing its mo tion to c om pe l a rbitration. W e grant Titus’ s m otion to dism iss thea

ppe a l a s m oot. 

# FIL ED DEC 02 2019 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.B e c a

use Titus volunta

rily dism isse d he r c l a im s a ga inst B lue C hip with pre j udic e be fore B lue C hip se rve d e ithe r an a n swe r or a

m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt, se e Fe d. R . C i v. P. 41(a )(1)(A)(i), the c a s e is no longer proc e e d ing, a nd

“ de c iding [this a

ppe a l] would ha

ve no e ffe c t within the

c onfine s of the c a se itse lf.” Tur v . YouTube

, Inc
. , 562 F.3d 1212, 1214 (9th C ir. 2009). The re fore , this a ppe a l is m o ot. Se e C

hafin v . C hafin , 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013). B lue C hip’ s a

rgum e nt s to thec ontra

ry la c k m e rit. B lue C hip’ s c onte ntions that Titus a c t e d im

prope rly by fa iling to inform

the distric t c ourt tha

t sim ila r c la ss a c tions we re pe nding a ga inst B lue C hip a n d fa iling to inform

the distric t c ourt a

nd this C ourt of the te rm s of Titus’ s se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt with other de fe nda nts do not c ha nge the fa c t tha

t this a c tion is no longe

r proc e e ding. Nor ha s B lue C h ip
c ite d a ny a uthority for the proposition tha t it wa s im

prope r for Titus to dism

iss he r a c tion without expla

nat ion a fte r the distric t c ourt issue d a sta y orde r, and we have found none
. Fina lly , be c a u se B lue C hip fa ile d

to a sse rt its c ounte rc la im s in a n answe r (whic h would ha

ve ba rre d Titus’ s volunta

ry dism issa l unde r R

ule 41(a )(1)(A)(i)), B lue C hip’ s a sse rtions tha t it c ould ha

v e ra ise d c ounte rc la i m s a ga inst Titus a

re una va iling. W e a lso re

je c t B lue C hip’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the re re m a ins a

live c ontrove rsy be twe e n the pa

rtie s. It is irre l e va

nt tha t Titus’ s c ounse l ha

ve file d puta t ive c la ss 2a c tions a g a inst B lue C hip in other c a se s with othe r pla intiffs, be c a use we m ay

not look be y o nd “ the c onfine s of the c a s e itse l f” in a sse ssing m ootne ss. Tur , 562 F.3d
at 1214. The re fore , e ve n if B lue C hip is c orre c t tha t Titus’ s attorne y s e nga ge d in

“ strat e gic volunta

ry c e s sation,” suc h c onduc t doe s not a ffe c t our m ootne ss ana ly sis. B lue C h ip ha s not ide ntifie d a ny c ogniz a

ble c olla te ra l c onse que nc e s arising within the

“ c o nfine s” of this c a se . Id
. Nor doe s the c a se ’ s sta tus a s a puta tive c la ss a c tion a ffe c t

our a na ly sis. B e c a

u se no c la ss ha s be e n

c e rtifie d, Titus is the only

pla intiff be fore the c ourt; onc e she ha s dismisse d he r c la i m s with pre j udic e , no othe r pla intiff c a n ste p into he r shoe s to c ontinuethis le g a l a c tion. Se e Emp’rs-Te amste rs Loc al N os. 175 & 505 Pe nsion Tr. Fund v. Anc hor C apital Adv isors , 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th C ir. 2007). This c a se is a lso not “ c a

pa ble of re pe tition, y e t e v a ding re vie w” in the
re le va nt se nse . Se e Alc oa v . Bonne v ille Pow e r Admin. , 698 F.3d 774, 786 (9th C ir. 2012). Titus’ s la

wsuit a ga inst B lue C hip doe s not involve “ i nhe re ntly fle e ting”
a c tivity that pre c lude s judic ia l re vie w, a nd the re is no “re a sona

ble e xpe c tat ion tha

t the s am e c om

pla ining pa

rty [will] be subje c te d to thesa m e a c t ion a ga in.” Id . at 786 (quoting Turne r v . Roge rs , 564 U.S. 431, 440 (2011)) (a lte ration in origina

l). B e c a use Titus’ s unila

te ra l a c tion c a

use d this c a s e to be c om e m oot, we va c ate the d istric t c o urt’ s orde r de ny ing the m otion to c om p e l a rbitration. Se e U.S.
3Banc orp Mortg. C o. v . Bonne r Mall P’ship , 513 U.S. 18, 23 (1994). This va c atur
m itiga te s the “ o ngoing injury” and “ c olla te ra l c o nse que nc e s ,” if a

ny , tha t B lue C hip
m ay suffe r a s a

re s ult of theorde r. Se e C ity of Erie v . Pap’s A.M. , 529 U.S. 277, 288 (2000); Fritsc h v . Sw ift Transp. C o. of Ariz., LLC

, 899 F.3d 785, 791–92 (9th C ir. 2018). W e a lso dismiss thea ppe a l a s m oot. Although we de c line to de signa

te future a ppe a ls re ga

rding thee nforc e a

bility of B lue C hip’ s a

rbitration provision a s c om e ba c k c a se s, se e Ninth C ir. Ge ne ra l Orde rs 1.12, 3.6(d), our de c i sion is without pre j udic e to a

ny future m otion to a ssign a n a ppe a l ra i sing thesa

m e le ga l issue s to this pa ne l , se e C irc uit Advisory

C om m itte e Note to R

u l e s 34-1 to 34-3. V ACAT E D AND DISM ISSE D. 1

1 Ea c h pa rty sha l l be ar its own c osts. 4