Allstate Presses for Dismissal of Ohio Statute Claims in TCPA Suit
Despite the opposition of pro se plaintiff Bryan Reo, a practicing Ohio attorney (see 2303060003), Allstate stands by its Feb. 28 motion to dismiss the counts of his Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint that allege the insurer also violated Ohio’s…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) and Telephone Solicitation Sales Act (TSSA), said Allstate’s reply brief Friday (docket 1:23-cv-00329) in U.S. District Court for Northern Ohio in Cleveland. Reo’s March 3 opposition brief “ignores the well settled law in Ohio,” and attempts to modify the allegations in his complaint to “avoid dismissal,” it said. A review of the relevant Ohio statutes makes clear that Reo can’t sustain “cognizable claims for violations of these statutes,” it said. It’s also improper to use his opposition brief to amend his complaint, it said. Reo’s DPPA, CSPA and TSSA claims fail as a matter of law, it said. Reo seeks leave to file a sur reply brief because Allstate's reply brief "raises new arguments," cites cases "not previously cited" and attempts to raise "new issues with these new arguments," said his motion Saturday. Reo think Allstate's reply brief "is an imprudent and inefficient use of judicial resources," it said.