Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05340/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05340-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYNN SLOVIN, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

SUNRUN, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 15-cv-05340 YGR

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

STRIKE

Re: Dkt. No. 51

Plaintiffs Lynn Slovin, Samuel Katz, Jeffery Price, and Justin Birkhofer bring this putative 

class action alleging willfull violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 

(the “TCPA”). (Dkt. No. 46, “TAC.”) Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of individuals who 

received unwanted calls from defendants SunRun, Inc. and Clean Energy Experts, LLC, dba Solar 

America, collectively, or its agents, allegedly in violation of the TCPA. 

Currently before the Court is defendants’ motion to strike the class allegationsin the TAC. 

Plaintiffs oppose. Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this 

action, and for the reasons explained below, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’ motion to strike.1

I. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

A court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, 

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “The function of a [Rule] 12(f) motion to 

strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues 

by dispensing with those issues prior to trial. . . .” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft Co., 618 F.3d 

970, 973 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir.1993) rev'd 

on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994)). “Motions to strike ‘are generally disfavored because they 

are often used as delaying tactics and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal 

 1

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court 

finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. 

Case 4:15-cv-05340-YGR Document 67 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

practice.’” Shaterian v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 829 F. Supp. 2d 873, 879 (N.D. Cal. 2011) 

(quoting Rosales v. Citibank, Fed. Sav. Bank, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2001)). 

Because Rule 12(f) motions are disfavored, “courts often require a showing of prejudice by 

the moving party before granting the requested relief.” Sanchez v. City of Fresno, 914 F. Supp. 2d 

1079, 1122 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pac., Inc., 

217 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). “If there is any doubt whether the portion to be 

stricken might bear on an issue in the litigation, the court should deny the motion.” Holmes v. Elec. 

Document Processing, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 925, 930 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Platte Anchor 

Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2004)). It is within the sound 

discretion of the district court whether to grant a motion to strike. See Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 

973 (citing Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir.2000)). 

II. ANALYSIS

Defendants argue that the class allegations (TAC ¶¶ 130–38) should be stricken because the 

proposed classes do not satisfy the requirements to certify a class under Rule 23. Defendants make 

four arguments why certification will be inappropriate, namely that: (1) the proposed contain 

members without standing and the classes are not ascertainable; (2) individualized issues of agency 

and consent preclude a finding of predominance; (3) the named plaintiffs’ claims are not typical of 

the class; and (4) a class action is not the superior method of adjudicating the issues in this claim. 

Defendants essentially seek to litigate Rule 23 class certification prematurely. While 

defendants’ arguments may eventually prove to be convincing, defendants’ motion to strike is 

premature given that discovery is still ongoing and no motion for class certification has been filed. 

See In re Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. Wage and Hour Litig., 505 F. Supp. 2d 609, 615–16 (N.D. Cal. 

2007) (a motion to dismiss and strike class allegations is premature where no motion for class 

certification had been filed). Without the benefit of discovery and the demonstration of 

particularized arguments from both parties relating to class certification, the Court lacks the 

necessary information to rule on the propriety of the class allegations. 

Case 4:15-cv-05340-YGR Document 67 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Looking only to the TAC as the Court must on a motion to strike,2 the Court concludes the 

class allegations are not “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 

Although defendants indicate possible obstacles to certifying the proposed classes, they fail to show 

the Court should strike the class allegations at this early stage of the proceedings. Defendants’ 

arguments are more appropriately addressed at the class certification stage after the parties have 

had an chance to conduct full discovery and plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification. 

Consequently, defendants’ motion to strike the class allegations is DENIED without prejudice. 

Defendants may file a motion to strike the class allegations at the close of discovery or once a 

motion for class certification has been filed. 

Contrary to defendants’ assertion, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo Inc. v. 

Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1550 (2016) does not alter the analysis. In Spokeo, defendants challenged 

the standing of the named plaintiff. Here, by contrast, defendants seek to challenge the standing of 

absent class members. As discussed above, such arguments are suited for determination at class 

certification, not on a motion to strike. 

I. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion to strike. 

This Order terminates Docket No. 51.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2016 

 _______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 2

 Defendants submitted declarations and accompanying exhibits to support their motion. 

Plaintiffs object to this evidence, arguing it is not appropriate for the Court to consider evidence not 

subject to judicial notice on a motion to strike. The Court agrees and plaintiffs’ objections are 

SUSTAINED. In re Toyota Motor Corp., 790 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1170 (C.D. Cal. 2011); SEC v. 

Sands, 902 F. Supp. 1149, 1165 (C.D. Cal.1 995) (the grounds for a motion to strike must be 

readily apparent from the face of the pleadings or from materials that may be judicially noticed). 

Case 4:15-cv-05340-YGR Document 67 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 3