Plaintiff Urges Ill. Court to Deny State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss His TCPA Suit

State Farm incorrectly contends that Gabriel Nater fails to state a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said the plaintiff’s opposition Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-01408) in U.S. District Court for Central Illinois in Peoria to State Farm’s motion to dismiss his first amended complaint. Nater’s complaint “adequately states a claim for relief” because at the pleading stage of a TCPA case, the plaintiff “need only allege facts supporting a reasonable inference” that State Farm is responsible for the illegal calls that he received on his cellphone, said his opposition. The defendant nevertheless asks the court “to turn a blind eye” to the complaint’s “detailed allegations that recite the clear legal basis for holding State Farm liable for the unauthorized telemarketing calls” made to Nater and the putative class, it said. The company “simply ignores” the FCC’s order establishing that a seller such as State Farm may be vicariously liable under federal common law agency-related principles for violations of either Section 227(b) or 227(c) committed by telemarketers that initiate calls to market its products or services, said Nater’s opposition. State Farm’s motion to dismiss “should be denied in its entirety” because Nater “has met his burden to show subject-matter jurisdiction, it said. The complaint’s allegations show that even if it turns out that State Farm didn’t itself place the calls to Nater, it “can still be held vicariously liable,” said the opposition. If the court isn't inclined to deny State Farm’s motion “outright,” Nater “requests jurisdictional discovery to explore State Farm’s relationship with its agent as well as the unidentified entity it claims made the calls at issue,” it said. Should the court be inclined to grant State Farm’s motion to dismiss, in whole or in part, Nater requests leave to amend “to cure any perceived deficiencies,” it said.