Parler Reply Would Address Plaintiff’s Many ‘Inaccuracies’: Motion

Parler seeks leave to file a reply memorandum in support of its motions to compel arbitration and to transfer plaintiff Jordan Copeland’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint to U.S. District Court for Nevada, said the right-leaning social media platform in a filing Tuesday (docket 3:22-cv-21243) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Pensacola.

“Given the magnitude of the pending issues and the novel factual theories” that Copeland introduced for the first time in his Dec. 2 opposition briefing to the motions to compel and transfer, “extraordinary circumstances exist which warrant reply briefing,” said Parler. It’s prepared to file a reply memorandum within three days of a court order permitting it to do so. Parler asserts Copeland agreed to its terms and conditions to resolve any disputes through arbitration and to bring any civil action against the company only in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas.

Copeland in his opposition asserts he never had any contact with Parler other than the telemarketing messages they sent him, said the filing. The assertion “lacks any citation” to Copeland’s complaint, and the complaint itself “includes no allegation” that he never had any contact with Parler aside from the subject text messages, it said. If Copeland had never used Parler or signed up for a Parler account, “he could have so alleged,” but he didn’t, it said.

Parler is known to journalists as “an alt-tech alternative to Twitter,” said Copeland’s opposition. Citing RollingStone.com as the source, Copeland said Parler “is being purchased by Kanye West, who has already taken to the network to spew anti-Semitic speech after recently being booted off of Instagram for that same type of behavior.” Parler responded that “among other inaccuracies” in Copeland’s opposition, he “devotes substantial discussion to a purported transaction between Parler and Kanye West, even though it was publicly reported that the transaction was not happening before Plaintiff filed his briefs.”

Copeland’s opposition erroneously claims the court has no ability to conduct the necessary analysis to determine whether he agreed to Parler’s terms of service, said Parler. “But beyond the error in Plaintiff’s position, his counsel’s novel factual arguments, unsupported by any facts in the record, warrant reply briefing here.”