Court Opinion

ID: 9554328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 17:12:49.295942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:28.711008
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                               AUG 8 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUCINE TRIM, individually and on                 No.   22-55517
behalf of all others similarly situated,
                                                 D.C. No.
              Plaintiff-Appellant,               2:20-cv-01027-SVW-KS

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
REWARD ZONE USA LLC; DOES, 1-10
inclusive,

              Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                    Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 28, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: N.R. SMITH, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Plaintiff Lucine Trim (Trim) appeals from the district court’s partial

judgment granting a motion to dismiss in favor of Defendant, Reward Zone USA,

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LLC (Reward Zone), in a putative class action lawsuit brought under the

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Because the district court certified

its interlocutory order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), we have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See SEC v. Cap. Consultants LLC, 453 F.3d

1166, 1174 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We review de novo a district court’s

dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). See Brunette v. Humane Soc’y of Ventura Cnty., 294 F.3d 1205, 1209

(9th Cir. 2002). We affirm on the first cause of action.

      Trim’s argument in that cause of action is foreclosed by our decision in

Borden v. eFinancial, LLC, 53 F.4th 1230 (9th Cir. 2022). In Borden, we held that

a system constitutes an autodialer regulated by the TCPA only if it “generate[s]

and dial[s] random or sequential telephone numbers.” Id. at 1231 (emphasis

removed). Because Trim concedes that the subject dialing equipment did not

generate telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator,

Reward Zone’s text messages were not sent via use of an autodialer in violation of

the TCPA.1

      AFFIRMED.

      1
        We deny the Electronic Privacy Information Center and National
Consumer Center’s motion to become amicus curiae as moot. (Dkt. 14). We also
deny as moot Trim’s initial petition for rehearing en banc. (Dkt. 28).
                                          2