In Reo v. Palmer Admin. Servs., the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit compelled a father’s TCPA claim to arbitration after his son had previously settled his own TCPA claim with the same defendant for calls made to the same shared phone number.

In 2018, Plaintiff, represented by his son, alleged that defendant made unauthorized telemarketing calls to his landline telephone number. Two years earlier, the attorney-son threatened to file a complaint against defendant for the same conduct. The attorney-son and defendant entered into a settlement agreement “to resolve any and all future disputes and claims arising between them” through binding arbitration.

The district court compelled arbitration of the father’s claims “because they involve telemarketing calls made to the same landline at the same address in overlapping periods of time.” The Sixth Circuit rejected the father’s argument that he is not subject to the prior arbitration provision because he and his son were not in privity with one another. Under Ohio law, privity does not require a contractual relationship, but rather “privity exists when the interests of one adequately represent[] the interests of another.”

The Court affirmed the order compelling arbitration , finding the father and attorney-son were in privity because they “share an address and a telephone landline . . . both seek to prevent future calls from” defendant and “both sought relief for an alleged injury stemming from calls to the same shared, residential landline.”

The case is Reo v. Palmer Admin. Servs., --- Fed. App’x ---, 2019 WL 2306641 (6th Cir. 2019).