Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05340/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05340-1/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, SAMUEL KATZ AND JEFFERY 

PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

SUNRUN, INC., CLEAN ENERGY EXPERTS, LLC, DBA SOLAR AMERICA, AND DOES 1

THROUGH 5, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 15-CV-5340 YGR

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. 

Case 4:15-cv-05340-YGR Document 40 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 2
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 

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.

Date: April 28, 2016 _______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-05340-YGR Document 40 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 2