to show that certification is warranted,” id., we will not, as Allstate urges, direct the district court to enter judgment on Pacleb’s individual claims before Pacleb has had a fair opportunity to' move for class certification. Finally, even if Pacleb’s individual claims were otherwise fully satisfied, he could continue to seek class certification under Pitts. For these reasons, the district court’s order denying Allstate’s motion to dismiss' the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed. ORDER AFFIRMED. 4* Allstate’s motion to supplement the record on appeal, filed February 12, 2016, is GRANTED. 2 . In its initial briefing in this court, Allstate attempted to distinguish this case from Diaz v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp., 732 F.3d 948 (9th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>), on the ground that Diaz involved an expired
holding an unaccepted rule 68 offer does not moot a claim holding that federal rule 68 by its terms does not apply if the judgment is entered in favor of the offeror holding an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiffs case emphasis added recognizing that minnesota allows the offeree to recover costs as a prevailing party under minnstat  5490104 2004 despite having rejected a more favorable rule 68 offer because unlike the federal rule minnesota rule 68 does not specifically state that the offeree is responsible for her own costs and disbursements holding that while rule 68 does not explicitly require that an offer of settlement under that rule be made in writing its requirement that the offer be served upon the adverse party implies as much