Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

SLOVIN v. SUNRUN, INC., 15-CV-5340 YGR. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160429b17 Visitors: 18
Filed: Apr. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF DEFENDANTS SUNRUN, INC. AND CLEAN ENERGY EXPERTS, LLC'S TO STRIKE WITH LEAVE TO AMEND DKT. NO. 36 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . Plaintiffs Lynn Slovin, Samuel Katz, and Jeffery Price ("Plaintiffs") bring this putative class action against Defendants SunRun, Inc., and Clean Energy Experts, LLC, dba Solar America ("Defendants") for violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. section 227. Plaintiffs filed their Second Ame
More

ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF DEFENDANTS SUNRUN, INC. AND CLEAN ENERGY EXPERTS, LLC'S TO STRIKE WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

DKT. NO. 36

Plaintiffs Lynn Slovin, Samuel Katz, and Jeffery Price ("Plaintiffs") bring this putative class action against Defendants SunRun, Inc., and Clean Energy Experts, LLC, dba Solar America ("Defendants") for violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. section 227. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on March 25, 2015. (Dkt. No. 35.)

Defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended Complaint and, at the same time, filed a Motion to Strike. (Dkt. No. 36.) Defendants seek to strike the class actions here on the grounds that the class alleged is improperly fail-safe and unascertainable, and that it fails the predominance and typicality requirements of Rule 23 on the face of the complaint. Defendants object that the proposed class definitions are flawed because they would require a merits-based determined in order to determine class membership because they are defined as recipients of calls "from or on behalf of Defendants," yet Plaintiffs have not alleged the entities that may have placed such calls on behalf of Defendants.

Based upon the Court's review of the SAC and the motion, and as discussed with the parties at the case management conference held April 25, 2016, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Strike WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Plaintiffs shall file their Third Amended Complaint specifying the third party agents they contend made calls on behalf of Defendants no later than June 28, 2016.

Accordingly, the Motion to Strike is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The hearing previously set for June 7, 2016, is VACATED.

This terminates Docket No. 36.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer