Brinkley

I. Background

25 The Court incorporates the detailed factual background set forth in its January 17, 26 2020 Order. ECF No. 150 (Order on Motion for Summary Judgment). For the purposes of 27 the pending motions, the relevant procedural history and facts are provided below. 28 This case arises from a series of eight telephone calls that Plaintiff had with Defendant’s representatives between December 2012 and March 2013. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff claims that Defendant recorded these calls without her knowledge or consent, in violation of California law. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint (“SAC”), filed on December 10, 2018, is the operative pleading and describes one class and one sub-class that Plaintiff seeks to represent: [1] All persons who, while residing in California and Washington, made or received one or more telephone calls with Defendant from October 15, 9 2009 through the date of trial (the “Class Period”) and did not receive notice at the beginning of the telephone call that their telephone conversation may be recorded or monitored (the “Class”). 11 . . . [2] All persons who made…