Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9418766
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Lucine Trim v. Reward Zone USA LLC
No. 9418766 · Decided August 8, 2023
No. 9418766·Ninth Circuit · 2023·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
August 8, 2023
Citation
No. 9418766
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
Plain English Summary
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 8 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
Key Points
01FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 8 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUCINE TRIM, individually and on No.
03MEMORANDUM* REWARD ZONE USA LLC; DOES, 1-10 inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
04Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 28, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: N.R.
Frequently Asked Questions
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 8 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Lucine Trim v. Reward Zone USA LLC in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on August 8, 2023.
Use the citation No. 9418766 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.