296 F. Supp. 3d 367
D.D.C.2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff (Aldabe) sued Cornell University, arXiv operators, several individuals, and the Simons Foundation alleging various federal and state claims arising from rejection/reclassification of his arXiv submissions.
- Procedural posture: Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); plaintiff previously amended once and submitted additional materials in opposition.
- Core factual allegations: plaintiff claims arXiv suppressed or reclassified certain authors (based on names/statistics) to favor Cornell researchers, harming his publication, funding prospects, and contractual expectations.
- Plaintiff asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (discrimination), the Sherman Act (Sections 1 and 2), the False Claims Act, and breach of contract; he also sued individual defendants and the Simons Foundation for related theories.
- Court reviewed pleading sufficiency under Iqbal/Twombly standards and Rule 9(b) for fraud-based claims and evaluated whether amendments would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 42 U.S.C. § 1981 discrimination | Statistical analysis shows systematic discrimination by race/religion/national origin; name taken to be Muslim | Complaint fails to plead discriminatory intent or explain group identification; allegations conclusory | Dismissed — insufficient to allege purposeful discrimination; impact-only/statistical claims and conclusory name-based claim fail |
| Sherman Act § 1 (conspiracy) | arXiv suppressed authors to curtail competition for government funding | No facts alleging agreement or concerted action (no plausible conspiracy pleaded) | Dismissed — fails to plead an agreement/conspiracy plausibly |
| Sherman Act § 2 (monopolization) | arXiv is a choke point in the global "market for ideas" and monopolizes distribution | Market not properly defined; no economic market-share or power allegations; no exclusionary conduct pleaded | Dismissed — fails to define relevant market or allege monopoly power/exclusionary practices plausibly |
| False Claims Act | arXiv suppression fraudulently benefits Cornell researchers and federal grantors | Relator failed to plead fraud with particularity (Rule 9(b)); allegations speculative/res ipsa | Dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 9(b); court need not reach FCA procedural filing requirements |
| Breach of contract (state law) | Submission to arXiv created a contract; arXiv breached moderation promises, delayed ID, reclassified paper | Submission was subject to arXiv policies reserving rejection/reclassification; arXiv provided a stated reason; no material breach pleaded | Dismissed — no plausible material breach; alleged contractual terms either complied with or do not exist |
Key Cases Cited
- Domino's Pizza Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (discussing § 1981 scope)
- Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375 (discrimination under § 1981 requires purposeful discrimination)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for conclusory allegations)
- Gilbuilt Homes, Inc. v. Cont'l Homes of New England, 667 F.2d 209 (1st Cir. 1981) (conspiracy pleading under Sherman Act § 1)
- Sterling Merch., Inc. v. Nestle, S.A., 656 F.3d 112 (1st Cir. 2011) (elements of monopolization claim under Sherman Act § 2)
- Lawton ex rel. United States v. Takeda Pharm. Co., Ltd., 842 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2016) (FCA claims governed by Rule 9(b))
- Coady Corp. v. Toyota Motor Distributors, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 2d 225 (D. Mass. 2003) (Massachusetts breach elements)