UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

YASMIN CA RTY, P laintif f,
v. Civil Action No. 10-1788 AUTHOR SOL UTIONS, INC., Defendan t.

MEMORAN DUM OP INION Plaintiff Yasmin Carty

brought this action pro se ag ainst defe ndant publisher Author Soluti ons, Inc. (" Author Solutions"), alleg ing misconduc t relatingto sale of he r book, " Proverbs, Phrases, or Rhy

mes for People Who are Intere sted in Knowledg e and Wisdom." See Compl. at 1. Plaintiff seeks " restitution of $30,000,000" a nd contends that the de fenda nt was " hiding sa les" and " obviously

suppressi[ng] evidence of other subsidiar ies and c ompanies . . . selling[her] book." I d. Presently

befor e the Court is the def endant' s motion t o dismiss the plaintiff' s complaint with prejudice for f ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief c an be grante d. For the followingrea sons, the Court will gra nt defe ndant' s motion t o dismiss

. BACK GR OUND Plaintiff entere d into an Author Service s Ag ree ment (" Ag ree ment") with Author Soluti ons, throug h which she pur chase d the " Standard Pape rbac k Publis hing" option to publi sh a

1 book entitled "Prove rbs, Phrases a nd Rhy mes." Def

.' s Mot. to Dism iss ("D ef.' s Mot") [Docke t

Author Solutions also operates unde r the name AuthorHouse

. 1 -1-Entry

3] Ex . 1 at 1. This option provides that Author Solutions wil l "pr epar e [the author' s work] for distribution as a . . . pa perba ck, design a full-c olor cove r, obtain an Interna tional Standard Book Number (I SBN), a

nd reg ister [the work] with di stributors so that it m ay be ava ilable for sale." Def

.' s Mot. Ex . 2 at 1. Section 5 of the A gree ment indicates that Author Solutions will remit royalty

pay ments to authors on a qua rterly basis alongwith a re port of sale s for e ach quarte r. I d. at 2. Section 13 of the A g ree ment stipulates that "[a]ny dispute betwee n the par

ties MUST be submitted to bindi ngarbitration administ ere d by the American Ar

bitration Association." I d. at 4. Plaintiff signe d the Ag ree ment on September 28, 2006, indicating that she had r ead, unde rstood, and ac cepte d its terms in full. Def.' s Mot. Ex . 1 at 2. B etwee n 2007 and 2010, plaintiff r ece ived che cks fr om Author Soluti ons in amounts rang ing f rom $3.95 to $79.20, ref

lectingpay

ment of royalties ea

rned in re lation to sales of her book. Compl. Ex s. A1- A6. On September

28, 2010, plaintiff filed this complaint ag ainst Author Solutions in the Superior Court of the D istrict of Columbia, alleg ing a n appar ent bre ach of

contra ct claim and seekingdamag es of $30,000,000. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff claims that she discover ed that her book is available f

or sale " in ever

y country throug hout the world," throug h a number of venue s including online r etailer s and bookstores. I d. She also maintains that the book has be come a bestseller in Cana da. I d. Ba sed on this information, plaintiff alleg es that Author Solutions has withheld roy alties to which she is entitled as a result of sale s of her

book and re quests "r estitution for [the defe ndant] hidi ngsales and . . . suppr essingevidenc e of othe r subsidiaries a nd companies who ar e selling[her] book." I d. Author Solutions removed the ac tion to thi s Court on October 22, 2010, a nd moved to

-2-dismiss the plaintiff' s complaint for fa ilure to state a c laim on October 25, 2010. Author Soluti ons also contends that, in any event, plaintiff' s complaint must be arbitrate d acc ordingto the terms of the Ag ree ment. Def .' s Mot. at 4. STANDARD OF REVIEW All that the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e re quire of a complaint is that it contain "' a short and plain stateme nt of the cla im showing that the ple ader is entitled to relief,' in order to

' g ive the def

endant f air notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it re sts.'" Be ll Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotingConley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)) ; acc ord Eric kson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (pe r cur iam). Althoug h "de tailed fac tual alleg ations" a

re not ne cessa

ry to withstand a Rule 12(b)( 6) motion to dism iss, to provide the " g rounds" of " entitle[m ent] to relief," a plaintiff must furnish " more than la bels and conclusions" or " a for

mulaic re citation of the e lements of a c ause of action." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555-56; see also Papasan v. A llain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). " To survive a motion to dismiss , a complaint must contain suffic ient fac tual matter, a cce pted as true , to 'state a c laim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " A shcrof t v. I qbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570); ac cord A therton v. District of Columbia Off ice of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681 ( D.C. Cir. 2009). A complaint is plausible on its face "when the plaintiff ple ads fac tual content that allows the c ourt to draw the rea sonable infe renc e that the de fenda nt is li able for the misconduc t alleg ed." I qbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. This amounts t o a " two-prong ed approa ch" under which a c ourt first identifies the f actua l alleg ations entitled to an assumption of truth and then de termines " whether they plausibly g ive rise to an e ntitlement to relief." I d. at 1950-51.
-3-The notice pleadingrules ar e not meant to impose a grea t burden on a

plaintiff. Dura Pharm., Inc. v. B roudo, 544 U.S. 336, 347 (2005); see also Swierkiewic z v. S orema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-13 (2002). When the suf ficienc y of a c omplaint is challeng ed by a motion to dismiss under Rule 12( b)(6) , the plaintiff' s fac tual alleg ations must be presumed true and should be libera lly

construed in his or he r fa vor. L eathe rman v. Ta

rra nt County Nar cotics & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164 (1993); Phil lips v. Bure au of Prisons, 591 F.2d 966, 968 (D.C. Cir. 1979); see a lso Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (c iting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555-56). The plaintiff must be g iven eve ry favor able infe renc e that may be dra wn from the a lleg ations of fa ct. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Sparrow v. United Air L ines, Inc., 216 F .3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Howe ver, " the cour t need not ac cept infe renc es dra wn by plaintiffs if such infer ence s are unsupported by the fa cts set out in the complaint." K owal v. MCICommc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 ( D.C. Cir. 1994). Nor doe s the court a cce pt "a leg al conc lusion couche d as a f

actua l alleg ation," or

"na ked asse rtions [ of unlawf ul misconduct] devoid of further fac tual enhanc ement." I qbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50 (internal quotation mar ks omitt ed); see also Aktieselskabe t AF 21. Nove mber 21 v. F ame Jeans Inc., 525 F .3d 8, 17 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (explaining that the c ourt has " never acc epted leg al conc lusions cast in the form of f actua l alleg ations")

. DISCUSSIO N A. F ailure to State a Claim Even unde r the libera l standard by which pro se plaintiffs' complaints are evalua ted, the plaintiff has fa iled to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be g rante d. See F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)( 6). Complaints submi tted by plaintiffs proce edingpro se a re r eviewe d by

the cour t under

-4-"le ss stringe nt standards than f ormal plea dings dr afte d by lawyers." Haines v. K erne r, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The court may also examine "othe r plea dings to unde rstand the nature a nd basis of [plaintiff's] pro se c laims." Chandler v. W.E. W elch & Assocs., 533 F . Supp. 2d 94, 102 (D.D.C. 2008) ( quoting Gr ay v. Poole, 275 F.3d 1113, 1115 (D .C. Cir. 2002)). Howe ver, a pro se complaint must stil l plead " ' fac tual matter' that permits the cour t to infer more than the ' mere possibili ty

of misconduct.' " Jones v. Horne , 634 F.3d 588, 596 ( D.C. Cir. 2011) (interna l citation omitted). Carty ' s complaint, a one- pag e docume nt that discusses her f ailure to re ceive timely royalty pay ments, provides insufficie nt fac tual information to establish brea ch of c ontrac t or any other c laim upon which she would be entitled to the relief she see ks. Carty

states in her complaint that she is owed $30,000,000 a s "r estitution" for the defe ndant' s conce alment of sale s of her book and fa ilure to remit to her the resultingroyalty pay ments in a timely

manner . Compl. at 1. Plaintiff attache s chec ks she has re ceive d from Author Solutions, but these alone do not indicate a contra ctual oblig ation on the par t of Author Solutions or sugg est that Author Solutions has violated a

ny provision of the Agree ment. Compl. Ex s. A1-A6. The court ne ed not ac cept leg al conc lusions "ca st in the form of fa ctual alleg ations" or "a cce pt infere nces dr awn by plaintiffs if such infe renc es ar e unsupported by the fa cts set out in the complaint." K owal, 16 F.3d at 1276; see also I qbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50. Hence , beca use plaintiff' s assertions ar e not supported by

fac ts showing misconduc t by defe ndant, her

complaint will be dismiss ed for failure to state a c laim for which r elief ma y be g rante d. B. Arbitrat ion Agreem ent Even if plaintiff' s complaint did adequately state a c laim for re lief, her claims would also

-5-have to be dismiss ed bec ause he r Agree ment with Author Soluti ons mandates pa rties to submit disputes to binding ar

bitration. See De f.' s Mot. Ex . 2 at 4. A written agree ment to arbitrate "in . . . a contr act e videncinga tra nsaction involving c ommerce . . . shall be valid, irre vocable , and enfor cea ble," absent c ircumstance s that would invalidate the a g ree ment. 9 U.S.C. § 2; Nelson v. Insignia /ESG, I nc., 215 F . Supp. 2d 143, 158 (D.D.C. 2002). The F eder al Arbitra tion Act cre ates a strongpresumption in favor of enfor cingarbitration agree ments, and " any doubts conce rning the scope of ar

bitrable issues should be re solved in favor of ar bitration." Mose s H. Cone Mem' l Hosp. v. Merc ury

Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983). He re, se ction 13 of the Agree ment states that " [a] ny

dispute betwee n the par

ties MUST be submitted to bindi ngarbitration administered by

the Amer ican Ar

bitration Association," Def .' s Mot. Ex . 2 at 4, and plaintiff doe s not contest the validity

of the Agree ment. Henc e, ar bitration is the appropriate forum f or plaintiff' s g rieva

nce, not this Court. Def endant c ontends that dismissal with prejudice is appropr iate bec ause " allowing amendment would be futile" due to the Agree ment' s require ment of bindingarbitration. Def.' s Mot. at 4, Ex . 2 at 4. Althoug h leave to amend a c omplaint is freely g rante d to plaintiffs when "justice so require s," F ed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), a court may , in its di scre tion, deny leave to amend in case s of " undue dela

y , bad fa ith or . . . futility of ame ndment." F oman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). An a

mendment is deeme d futile when the proposed c laim would not survive a motion to di smiss, such as where the amende d complaint would suffe r fr om the same fla w as the orig inal complaint. J ames Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig , 82 F.3d 1085, 1099 ( D.C. Cir. 1996); J ohnson v. Dist. of Columbi a, 244 F .R.D. 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2007), a ff’ d, 552 F.3d 806 ( D.C. Cir. 2008).
-6-Her e, plaintiff' s claim ag ainst Author Solutions fails bec ause it ar ises from the

Ag ree ment, which mandates arbitra tion for all disputes. Henc e, it is very likely that any amendments to her

complaint would suffe r fr om the same fla w. See, e .g ., J ohnson, 244 F.R.D. at 8 (deny ing a s futile the amendme nt of plaintiff' s claims beca use of r equire ment to pursue administrative re medy

). Where a

court de termines that the a ssertion of additional fa cts consistent with the challeng ed plea ding w ould not remedy the def iciency , dismiss al of a

claim with prejudice is appropriate. Fir estone v. F irestone, 76 F .3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also J ungv. Ass' n of Am. Med. Colls., 184 F. App' x 9, 11-12 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ( aff irming dismiss al of plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice beca use cla im was barr ed by

statute and alleg ation of additional fa cts would not cure defic iency ). B ut here the Court need not r eac h that far , beca use plaintiff ha s g iven no sig n of wishingto amend her complaint. Henc e, the Court will simply dismiss the complaint. 2 Finally , plaintiff has re quested in her reply to defe ndant' s motion t o dismiss that the Court should refr ain from or dering dismiss al bec ause she wishes to settle with defe ndant. The pa rties have ha d ample time to follow that course , and ther e is no basis to delay resolution of def

endant' s motion any

longe r. CONCLUSION For the re asons explained above, the Court will gra nt defe ndant' s motion t o dismiss for failure to state a c laim. An order has bee n filed on this date.

The Court nee d not conver t defe ndant' s motion t o dismiss , which attac hed the 2 Ag ree ment, to a motion for summary judgme nt beca

use plaintiff' s complaint is dism issed for failure to state a c laim notwithst andingthe ar bitration agree ment. -7-/s/ J OHN D. B ATES United States District J udg e Dated: June 10, 2011

-8-