In Moser v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., 2018 WL 325112, at *8–9 (S.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Hayes found that a TCPA Plaintiff had adequately pleaded agency allegations against a host of defendants allegedly involved in health insurance telemarketing sales. Judge Hayes then refused to strike a host of allegations made in the Complaint regarding other complaints and sister-state actions.
Allegations concerning the Moser lawsuit and settlement, the Massachusetts settlement, the Arkansas cease and desist letter, and the Montana cease and desist letter may be relevant to the amount of attention Unified and HII did or should have paid to their sales practices. The amount of attention Unified and HII paid to their sales practices may be relevant to the extent of their knowledge of and involvement in the alleged marketing scheme that included the Calls. The extent of Unified and HII’s knowledge of and involvement in the alleged marketing scheme that included the Calls may be relevant to whether Unified and HII can be held vicariously liable for the Calls. Consequently, the Court declines to strike paragraphs 69 through 75 and 78 through 82 of the FAC and Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8. . . .Paragraphs 83 through 86 of the FAC relate to public complaints that have been filed against Helping Hand and Nationwide and HII’s ability to access those complaints. The Court declines to strike paragraphs 83 through 86 because they may be relevant to Moser’s TCPA claims, particularly the extent of HII’s knowledge of the alleged marketing scheme that included the Calls.
The District Court also declined to strike the class allegations based on the Defendants’ argument that the class definition constituted a “fail-safe” class.
Nationwide and HII move to strike Moser’s sub-class allegations on the grounds that the alleged classes are “fail-safe” and therefore not certifiable. Courts disfavor motions to strike class allegations because issues related to class allegations are generally more appropriately resolved on a motion for class certification. . . . The Court concludes that Defendant’s motion to strike class allegations is premature at this stage of the proceedings. The class issues raised by Nationwide and HII are more appropriately considered at the class certification proceedings. See Lyons, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 1236 (noting that courts rarely grant motions to dismiss class allegations before discovery). Defendant’s motion to strike class allegations is denied.