On October 9, 2025, the Western District of Washington granted a motion to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuit brought against a solar marketing company. The court found that the plaintiff’s complaint suffered from improper “shotgun” and “group” pleading, failed to provide sufficient notice of the claims, and lacked standing for injunctive relief.
Pleading Deficiencies: Shotgun and Group Pleading
The court found that the plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a “short and plain statement” of the claim. The complaint was characterized as a “shotgun pleading,” overwhelming the defendant with a mass of unclear allegations and making it difficult to discern the specific conduct attributed to each defendant. The use of collective terms such as “The Telemarketer” and “Defendants” to refer to multiple companies, without distinguishing their individual roles, was deemed impermissible group pleading. The court emphasized that such undifferentiated allegations do not provide fair notice and are grounds for dismissal.
For example, Plaintiff appears to allege that “Solar America” and “American Solar,” the companies that called him using Scripts A and B, were fictitious business names utilized by CEE, whose parent company is allegedly Sunrun, and that BSM would not be answering phone calls connected to Solar America “without CEE’s and Sunrun’s knowledge and approval.” (Dkt. No. 10 at 10.) Plaintiff further alleges Sunrun “ratified” the calls made by CEE. (Id. at 23.) Plaintiff makes numerous allegations against both companies (see id. at 19–23), and it is unclear what impact the extraction of these Defendants from the collective entity known as “The Telemarketer” would have on Plaintiff’s claims.
Standing for Injunctive Relief
The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because the complaint did not allege a “real or immediate threat” of future harm. The last alleged call from the defendants occurred more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint, and the plaintiff’s suggestion that additional calls may have occurred was deemed speculative. As a result, the claim for injunctive relief was dismissed, and the court instructed that any amended complaint should not include such a claim absent new facts establishing standing.
TCPA Claims: Private Right of Action
The court addressed the viability of certain TCPA claims:
- Count 4 (47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(b)): Dismissed with prejudice, as the plaintiff conceded there is no private right of action under this regulation.
- Count 7 (47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(e)): The court acknowledged a split among district courts regarding whether a private right of action exists. Finding recent decisions persuasive, the court allowed the plaintiff to reassert this claim in an amended complaint.
Washington State Law Claims
- WDNC Claims (Counts 8 and 9): The court found that, for calls prior to July 23, 2023, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged “conversations” with live operators, satisfying the statutory requirement for a cause of action under the Washington Do Not Call statute.
- Claims for Calls After July 23, 2023 (Counts 10–14): Dismissed, as the plaintiff did not allege receipt of any calls on or after this date. The court instructed that any future claims for this period must identify specific calls.
- WADADA Claim (Count 15): The court held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded use of an “automatic dialing and announcing device” under Washington law, which does not require allegations of random or sequential number generation as under the federal TCPA.
NATHEN W. BARTON, v. BRIGHT SOLAR MARKETING LLC, No. 3:25-CV-05310-DGE, 2025 WL 2880136 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2025).
