a live controversy. As explained below, we agree with Allstate’s first contention, but reject its second and third arguments. A. Complete Relief Pacleb argues the judgment Allstate has consented to would not afford him complete relief on his individual claims for damages and injunctive relief, because Allstate has neither admitted liability nor offered sufficiently broad injunctive relief. We disagree. 1. Admission of Liability Pacleb contends Allstate has not agreed to complete relief because the judgment it has consented to would not include an admission of liability. Because his complaint alleges Allstate violated the TCPA, he maintains he “has an interest in a finding of liability by a court, or an admission of liability from Allstate, on those legal allegations. (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). 2. Scope of Injunctive Relief Pacleb
holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination holding that the right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings is not absolute where the defendant has been convicted of or has admitted to committing a crime holding a plaintiff is not entitled to keep litigating his claim simply because the defendant has not admitted liability holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages holding if the plea agreement was not conditioned on the sentencing guidelines an appellant is not entitled to relief because his sentence is not illegal