Mutual of Omaha says sure, maybe we illegally called you, but you lied to us on the call!
- Peter Schneider
- Jun 10
- 5 min read
Updated: Jul 22
Telemarketers don't have a problem with calling without consent and lying about who they are while doing it, but they get very upset if a consumer lies to them on the phone as part of their investigation.
United of Omaha is certainly peeved with Mr. Dobronski in telephone consumer protection act lawsuit Dobronski v. Daraujo et al case number 2:25-cv-10169 filed in the United States District Court, Easter District of Michigan, Southern Division. They expressed their displeasure in a 24 page motion to dismiss which regurgitated all telemarketer's greatest hits.
Dobronski brough another lawsuit for unwanted calls and United of Omaha started out strong with this is a bad dude!
Plaintiff’s Complaint is part of a serial pattern of over thirty-five complaints he has filed in the Eastern District of Michigan in the last five years alleging violations of the TCPA and similar statutes. The present case is particularly vexatious as it relates to United because Plaintiff only alleges one uninvited call where United was even mentioned by the telemarketer, with the remainder of calls only occurring after Plaintiff feigned interest in the insurance products being sold under a false identity he provided to the telemarketer [I find it hilarious that telemarketers point fingers at consumers sitting at home minding their own business when they get called and using a little deception to identify the caller].
Now going to the merits of United of Omaha's MTD, and I'm just assuming what they say is true because I didn't pull the complaint and I don't yet see a Response to the motion, they claim that a telemarketer only tried to sell Dobronski a United of Omaha policy in just one call.
on the first call that Plaintiff received, the telemarketer allegedly advised Plaintiff that he was with “Allstate Insurance Company” at which point Plaintiff provided false identifying information to set his “canary trap.” Even accepting the Plaintiff allegations as true, only then did the telemarketer to whom Plaintiff was transferred on the same call attempt to solicit him to purchase a United policy . . . The vexatious nature of Plaintiff’s Complaint is further demonstrated by the fact that Plaintiff is alleging that United is liable for calls (Calls 6-9) that bear no conceivable relationship to United, as United was not even identified or otherwise mentioned on the calls. [this doesn't prove they weren't calling on United's behalf]
And United of Omaha claims Dobronksi isn't making a direct liability argument, and claims does not make a sufficient vicarious liability argument to tie United of Omaha into the calls While Plaintiff alleges that United was aware of the “illegal telemarketing” to plead vicarious liability, threadbare allegations of awareness of “illegal telemarketing” alone are wholly insufficient to create an agency relationship for the purposes of vicarious liability.
Dobronks's argument appears to be
United is liable for the alleged calls because it facilitates the scheme by providing Defendant Alexis Francis Daraujo and Defendant Doe Telemarketer “with use of [United’s] trademark and access to [United’s] computer systems so that the product and pricing information may be provided to the called consumers and the consumer’s insurance applications may be completed onto [United’s] application forms and input directly … into [United’s] computer system.” Plaintiff further contends, without any particularized evidence, that United “knew (or reasonably should have known) of the overall scheme and that the insurance applications being received from their authorized agents, such as Daraujo, have been obtained through use of unlawful telemarketing methods, and that the authorized agents have falsely certified same, but [United] elects to consciously disregard or engage in willful blindness to said illegal conduct due to the financial benefits which Omaha reaps from same.” Defendant also alleges that “United is well aware of the overall scheme, as [United] has been sued by multiple plaintiffs (including this Plaintiff) on multiple prior occasions wherein the identical scheme was followed, but [United] takes no action to curtail the unlawful telemarketing methods or to terminate the producing agents …”
In some jurisdictions this probably is enough to survive a motion to dismiss, and in other jurisdictions it probably isn't. But they just can't help themselves in pointing out "but Dobronski caught us by using a fake name"! Dobronski is famous for using canary trap methods [give a caller a unique fake name and/or other details so that if a future caller comes back with that information you know the callers are connected]:
Plaintiff alleges that he provided the caller, who was allegedly calling on behalf of “Allstate Insurance Company,” with “controlled identifying information including a faux name of Bruce Maxwell Carter (a name which Plaintiff made up on the spur of the moment and had not used prior), a controlling mailing address, a false date of birth, a controlled email address, the name of the sole beneficiary being Vincent Carter (a hat tip to a character on the 1960’s TV sitcom Gomer Pyle), a random faux Social Security Number, and Plaintiff’s banking information including a legitimate bank name, a legitimate bank routing number, and faux account number”
Then they spent some time on the old trope that Dobronski welcomes our calls because he tracks down who we are and sue us for money, so we should be allowed to keep calling! After all, Dobronski has "sophisticated telephone answering and recording equipment”, so he must want the calls much like people with cameras and burglar alarms must want the break-ins. Why else would they have that equipment?
there is no plausible inference that can be drawn other than Plaintiff invites these phone calls for the purposes of manufacturing and prosecuting TCPA claims. Plaintiff admits in various lawsuits filed in this District that he maintains multiple different residential and cellular phone numbers. Plaintiff also admits that he uses “sophisticated telephone answering and recording equipment” to record calls and sets a “canary trap” by providing false names and information to persons for the purpose of encouraging call backs, so that he can establish TCPA violations and bring lawsuits.
All of United of Omaha's time they spent on he files too many lawsuits, he has sophisticated equipment is a waste of time, but they did a decent job of pointing that Dobronski's case against them might not be the strongest one he has ever filed. But that isn't a conclusion we can draw until we see his Response.
And Dobronski's court hasn't been over telemarketer friendly, so Dobronski might have plead his case strong enough. Stay tuned for a update when his Response becomes available!
Do you have a question or a telemarketing, debt collection, bankruptcy, contract, consumer protection, or appellant case that would make a great blog article? We might even review your pro-se complaint or motion in a blog post. Email peter@nwdebtresolution.com and/or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com and we may answer it for everyone!
The thoughts, opinions and musings of this blog are those of Peter Schneider, a consumer advocate and Washington State plaintiff's TCPA attorney at Northwest Debt Resolution, LLC. They are just that, his thoughts, opinions and musings and should be treated as such. They are not legal advice. If you are looking to file a lawsuit for TCPA violations and unwanted calls please contact me for a consultation.
Comments