Ex-GOP Candidate Ramaswamy Blasts TCPA Case Against Him as a ‘Shakedown’
Former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy opposes Telephone Consumer Protection Act plaintiff Thomas Grant's motion for limited expedited discovery to preserve relevant records of calls that Ramaswamy’s campaign, Vivek 2024, made to Grant and his putative class, said Ramaswamy’s opposition Friday (docket 2:24-cv-00281) in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Grant’s TCPA class action alleges Ramaswamy’s campaign, which was suspended Jan. 15, placed prerecorded calls to consumers’ cellphones to promote the candidate’s telephonic town hall events without first obtaining their prior express consent (see 2401240002). Under the circumstances that Grant alleges, a political candidate who doesn’t himself make the calls, but whose official campaign instead makes the calls, “may be held personally liable under the TCPA,” said Grant’s motion.
The court should deny Grant’s discovery motion because he hasn’t sued the correct party, said Ramaswamy’s opposition. Though Ramaswamy’s counsel has informed the plaintiff’s counsel that he hasn’t sued the correct party, the counsel “ignores this fact and brazenly attempts to engage in pre-appearance discovery against an improper party,” it said. That’s because Ramaswamy “has significantly greater resources” than the correct party, his Vivek 2024 campaign, it said.
Ramaswamy can’t be either directly or vicariously liable under the TCPA because “he never personally sent any text messages or initiated phone calls, nor did he personally engage a third party to do so,” said his opposition. Vivek 2024 was responsible for the phone calls, and Ramaswamy’s counsel informed Grant’s attorney of this fact, it said.
But Grant continues to sue the wrong party, said the opposition. This undermines “a cardinal principle of business organizations and defies the legally mandated distinction between a political candidate and his campaign entity under federal law,” it said. Grant’s “opportunistic attempt” to improperly name a wealthy former candidate as defendant, instead of suing the proper party, “is far outside the norm and allowing this shakedown to proceed would set a dangerous new precedent,” it said.
Ramaswamy’s attorney, Brodi Conover of Bricker Graydon in Lebanon, Ohio, “is unaware of a single TCPA suit brought against an individual candidate alone that has received a favorable judgment,” said the opposition: “To allow this suit to proceed as presently pleaded would have a lasting chilling effect on the ability or desire of future candidates to run for political office if they are deemed potentially personally liable for the ordinary-course activities of the campaign entity.”
Not only should the court deny Grant’s discovery motion, but it also should also dismiss his “meritless complaint” under Rule 12(b)(7), said Ramaswamy’s opposition. If Grant demands expedited discovery, “he should seek it from the proper party,” Vivek 2024, that likely possesses that information, it said. Grant’s unwillingness to do so, despite being repeatedly informed that the campaign is ready and willing to provide the requested information, reveals that Grant's supposed concern about lost or destroyed evidence “is likely just a bad-faith attempt to justify his opportunistic pursuit of the wrong party,” it said.