Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-24-2023

Case Style:

Dawn Costa v. Dvinci Energy, Inc.

Case Number: 21-CV-11501

Judge: Nathaniel M. Gordon

Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Suffolk County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Boston, Massachusetts consumer law lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a Telephone Consumer Protection Act violation theory.

MoreLaw Legal News For Boston

Defendant Dvinci is a “lead generation service” that specializes in finding prospective customers for solar energy companies. Plaintiff alleges that Dvinci was responsible for four telemarketing calls that she received in July, 2021, all of which used a similar sales script. Costa avers that the telephone number at which she received those calls was a residential, non-business number which had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry (“the Registry”) for more than 30 days. She claims that she did not provide her prior express written consent to receive calls from defendant.

         In September, 2021, Costa commenced this action on behalf of herself and putative class members, alleging that Dvinci's solicitations violated the TCPA. She seeks to represent a class composed of

[a]ll persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing calls [sic] from or on behalf of Defendant (3) within a 12-month period, (4) from four years prior [sic] the filing of the Complaint.

         Shortly thereafter, defendant filed the pending motion to strike plaintiff's class allegations.

* * *

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) permits a court to strike class allegations from the complaint

[i]f it is obvious from the pleadings that the proceeding cannot possibly move forward on a classwide basis.

Manning v. Boston Med. Ctr. Corp., 725 F.3d 34, 59 (1st Cir. 2013); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f).

* * *

Defendant's motion was denied.

Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case