Sweigert v. Perez, Civil Action No.: 17-2223 (RC)

• Decision Date: 20 September 2018
• Docket Number: Civil Action No.: 17-2223 (RC)
• Citation: 334 F.Supp.3d 36
• Parties: George Webb SWEIGERT, Plaintiff, v. Thomas PEREZ, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

334 F.Supp.3d 36

George Webb SWEIGERT, Plaintiff,

v.Thomas PEREZ, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 17-2223 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed September 20, 2018

George Webb Sweigert, Capitol Heights, MD, pro se.

Bruce Van Spiva, Perkins Coie, LLP, William Bullock Pittard, IV, Kaiser Dillon, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendants

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se plaintiff George Webb Sweigert brings this putative class action against a host of individuals and entities purportedly associated with the Democratic National Party—including Haseeb Rana, Theresa Grafenstine, the Democratic National Committee ("the DNC"),¹ Deborah Wasserman Schultz, and Huma Abedin—in connection with alleged actions taken by Defendants during the Democratic primaries to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1; see id. ¶¶ 4–13. In particular, Mr. Sweigert, an alleged supporter of Bernie Sanders, claims that Defendants committed fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by, among other things, conducting a website-hacking conspiracy to promote Hillary Clinton's candidacy and to diminish the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. Id. ¶ 31. Defendants Haseeb Rana, the DNC, Deborah Wasserman Schultz, Theresa Grafenstine, and Huma Abedin each move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), this order applies to all Defendants, not just those who have responded, because no named Defendant bears a causal relation to Mr. Sweigert's alleged injury in fact.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In the 2016 Presidential election's Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton won the party's nomination over Bernie Sanders and other candidates. Mr. Sweigert, an alleged supporter of Bernie Sanders, claims that he contributed $30 to Bernie Sanders's Presidential campaign, donating through ActBlue, a fundraising non-profit.² Compl. ¶ 2. Mr. Sweigert alleges that Defendants, all but Theresa Grafenstine ("Ms. Grafenstine"), orchestrated a hacking conspiracy designed to tip the Democratic primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton. Id. ¶¶ 32–36.

First, Mr. Sweigert alleges that Defendants, other than Ms. Grafenstine, defrauded donors to the DNC and to Bernie Sanders by "engineer[ing] a sophisticated email phishing attack" against Bernie Sanders supporters and "concoct[ing] a false narrative that the Russian government had been responsible" for the attack. See id. ¶¶ 33, 35. In particular, Plaintiff claims that Defendants undertook this attack by creating a URL similar to that of ActBlue, a fundraising non-profit, and designed to route funds intended for Bernie Sanders to bank accounts operated by Deborah Wasserman Schultz and/or Imran Awan. Id. ¶ 33. Mr. Sweigert theorizes that the DNC, in allegedly propagating a false narrative about the supposed hacking, intended that the statements would induce the DNC donor class to provide contributions, statements upon which DNC donors actually relied, alleges Mr. Sweigert, thus amounting to fraud. See id. ¶¶ 34–37.

Second, Mr. Sweigert claims that Defendants breached their alleged fiduciary duty to Mr. Sweigert and to all Democratic donors when certain Defendants:

(a) "[h]acked key Congressional communications systems such as iConstituent and InterAmerica," thus creating a spy ring out of the U.S. House of representatives. Id. ¶ 42.

(b) "[u]sed an illegal email/dropbox combination in the [U.S.] House of Representatives ... to share information with representative[s] of foreign governments including Pakistan and the UAE for the purpose of economic espionage ...." Id. ¶ 45

(c) "[e]ngag[ed] in a pay to play scheme, moving privileged, private communication[s] from iConstituent Congressional servers located in the U.S. House of Representatives and DNC servers ... to Anthony Weiner's laptop ...." Id. ¶ 46.

(d) Handled iPhones and iPads intended only for Congressional use. Id. ¶ 47.

(e) Conspired to create fake employees under the name "PeopleSoft" in the House of Representatives Human Resources system and sent payments from fake employee accounts and from the U.S. Congressional Federal Credit Union. Id. ¶¶ 48–49.

(f) Took electronic devices such as thumb drives, hard drives, and laptops containing trade secrets and traded these devices to "business entities" in Pakistan. Id. ¶ 50.

Based on these allegations, Mr. Sweigert filed suit in this Court claiming that Defendants committed fraud and breached fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff and to members of the putative classes.³ Defendants Haseeb Rana, the DNC, Deborah Wasserman Schultz, Theresa Grafenstine, and Huma Abedin move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defendants' motions are now ripe for decision.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a defendant to move to dismiss a complaint, or any portion thereof, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and the law presumes that "a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction...." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) ; see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA , 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("As a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with an examination of our jurisdiction."). In view of this presumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Khadr v. United States , 529 F.3d 1112, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2008). No action on behalf of either party can confer subject matter jurisdiction on a federal court because subject matter jurisdiction is both a statutory requirement and an Article III requirement. See Akinseye v. District of Columbia , 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

When reviewing a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), a court must review the complaint liberally, granting the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged. Zaidan v. Trump , 317 F. Supp. 3d 8, 16 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Barr v. Clinton , 370 F.3d 1196, 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ). However, "the Court need not accept factual inferences drawn by plaintiffs if those inferences are not supported by facts alleged in the complaint, nor must the Court accept plaintiffs' legal conclusions." Speelman v. United States , 461 F.Supp.2d 71, 73 (D.D.C. 2006). A court has "broad discretion to consider relevant and competent evidence" to resolve factual issues raised by a Rule 12(b)(1) motion. Finca Santa Elena, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs , 873 F.Supp.2d 363, 368 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing 5B Charles Wright & Arthur Miller, Fed. Prac. & Pro., Civil § 1350 (3d Ed. 2004) ); see also Al-Owhali v. Ashcroft , 279 F.Supp.2d 13, 21 (D.D.C. 2003) (explaining that consideration of documents outside of pleadings does not convert a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) into a motion for summary judgment).

The D.C. Circuit has instructed that a motion to dismiss for lack of standing constitutes a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because "the defect of standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction." Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. Brownlee , 331 F.3d 912, 915–16 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ; Haase v. Sessions , 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ; see generally Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464, 475–76, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). Accordingly, a lack of standing denotes a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which would support dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).

IV. ANALYSIS

Mr. Sweigert brings two claims against Defendants one for fraud and the other for breach of fiduciary duty. Compl. ¶¶ 31–51. Defendants Haseeb Rana, the DNC, Deborah Wasserman Schultz, Theresa Grafenstine, and Huma Abedin argue, among other things, that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Mr. Sweigert lacks standing to pursue his claims. See Def. Rana's Mem. P. & A. Supp. Mot. Dismiss Pl.'s Compl. ("Def. Rana's Mem.") at 3–6, ECF No. 17; Def. DNC's Mem. P. & A. Supp. Mot. Dismiss Pl.'s Compl. ("Def. DNC's Mem.") at 6–19, ECF No. 19; Def. Wasserman Schultz's Mot. Dismiss at 1–2, ECF No. 20; Def. Grafenstine's Mem. P. & A. Supp. Mot. Dismiss Pl.'s Compl. ("Def. Grafenstine's Mem.") at 6–10, ECF No. 22; Def. Abedin's Mem. P. & A. Supp. Mot. Dismiss Pl.'s Compl. ("Def. Abedin's Mem.") at 7, ECF No. 26.

To establish subject matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff must have standing, as governed by Article III of the Constitution. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Vetcher v. Sessions , 316 F. Supp. 3d 70, 75 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) ). A party has standing to bring suit under Article III of the Constitution only when she has suffered an injury in fact—that is, an injury which is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent—which is traceable to defendant's actions and redressable by the relief sought. U.S. Const. art. III § 2, cl. 1 ; Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l, USA , 568 U.S. 398, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) ; Lujan , 504 U.S. at 560–61, 112 S.Ct. 2130 ; see also United States v. Richardson , 418 U.S. 166, 176–177, 94 S.Ct. 2940, 41 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974). Allegations of a speculative or possible future injury do not satisfy the requirements of Article III. See Whitmore v. Arkansas , 495 U.S. 149, 158, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990). Moreover, "[P]laintiffs bear the burden of pleading ... concrete facts showing that the defendant's actual action has caused the substantial risk of harm." Clapper , 568...