Gerding v. American Kennel Club

Background

Alexander Gerding sued the American Kennel Club (AKC), North America Diving Dogs LLC (NADD), and AKC and NADD officers Doug Ljungren, Dennis B. Sprung, and Debra Markwardt. Gerding participated in NADD dog dock-diving competitions and entered his dog in 91 competitions between October 2018 and October 2020. NADD later banned him from further competitions and its social-media pages, stating that he had made repeated threats. Gerding alleged that the ban and other conduct caused approximately $5.4 million in damages.

Gerding filed the action without a lawyer and twice amended his complaint. His second amended complaint asserted twelve alleged violations, including consumer and business fraud, First and Fourteenth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, monopolization under the Sherman Act, claims under several federal criminal and administrative statutes, libel and defamation, breach of contract, and employment or self-employment discrimination. AKC and NADD moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Reasons for the Decision

The court held that Gerding had not alleged facts supporting individual liability for Markwardt, Sprung, or Ljungren. It also held that his fraud claims did not meet the heightened requirement to identify the allegedly false statements, who made them, when and where they were made, and why they were fraudulent.

The court dismissed the constitutional claims because AKC and NADD are private corporations, and Gerding did not allege that the government dominated their dog-diving activities. The court dismissed the Sherman Act claim because Gerding did not plausibly define a relevant product market or allege monopoly power and anticompetitive conduct. It further held that the federal statutes underlying several other claims—including 18 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 1001, the Animal Welfare Act, and Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(4)—did not provide Gerding a private right to sue, or otherwise did not support his claims as pleaded.

The court rejected the libel and defamation claims because Gerding did not plausibly allege that NADD’s statements were false or defamatory, and the AKC defendants did not make the challenged statements. His First Amendment retaliation claim also failed because the defendants were private actors. The court found no enforceable contract based on the registration forms because they stated eligibility requirements and competition rules rather than an offer accepted by mutual agreement. Finally, the court held that Gerding was not employed by, and had not sought employment with, the defendants, and that he had not shown that the ban prevented him from pursuing his stated career.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss in their entirety. The court dismissed with prejudice the claims concerning individual liability, fraud, constitutional violations, monopolization, several federal statutes, defamation, retaliation, and employment-related theories. The breach-of-contract claim was dismissed. The court denied Gerding’s request for leave to amend because he had already amended twice and further amendment would be futile. Gerding’s motion to compel arbitration and motion to stay, as well as Defendants’ motion for a protective order and motion for a preliminary injunction, were dismissed as moot.