Anderson v. Trump

Background

Alex Anderson Jr., representing himself, sued Donald John Trump individually and in his official capacity as former President of the United States. Anderson alleged a breach of contract. He claimed that, on November 12, 2019, he offered Trump a one-year New York State contract under which Anderson would serve as an assistant campaign manager for $300,000. Anderson alleged that the proposal was delivered to Trump by journalist Diane Sawyer and that he received six confirmations indicating that a contract had been made. The complaint also referred to Ivanka Trump and to a June 26, 2020 executive order.

Anderson sought $300,000, which he described as the value of the alleged contract. He had previously contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Commerce about the matter. The opinion also notes that Anderson had brought an earlier related action in the Southern District of Florida involving the same alleged contract, which that court dismissed as frivolous under the fee-free-litigation statute.

Legal standard

Because Anderson was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or did not fall within the court’s jurisdiction. The court also had to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations generously and consider the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the complaint.

To state a breach-of-contract claim, Anderson had to allege facts showing four things: a contract existed, he performed his obligations, Trump breached the contract, and Anderson suffered damages. The complaint also had to provide facts about the contract’s formation, date, and major terms.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Anderson did not provide sufficient facts supporting the existence of a contract. Although he alleged that a proposal was delivered to Trump, he did not allege facts indicating that Trump agreed to hire him. The court also noted that Anderson did not state when the agreement was finalized, describe its specific terms, or otherwise explain facts showing that a contract was formed. The court held that his conclusory statements that Trump entered into and breached an agreement were insufficient.

The court separately noted that the executive order referenced in the complaint did not create a private right to sue under its own terms. The court dismissed the complaint because Anderson failed to state a breach-of-contract claim, rather than resolving whether he ultimately could prove that a contract existed.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), with 30 days’ leave to replead. This allowed Anderson an opportunity to submit an amended complaint detailing the alleged contract. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Anderson fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.