Robert Rutz v. Discover Financial Services, No. 12-3704 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Arbitration. In an action to overturn an adverse arbitration decision regarding domain names, the district court did not err in dismissing the case as plaintiff failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1114(2)(D)(v) or the RICO statute; nor did the complaint state a contract claim or a tort claim. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3704 ___________________________ Robert L. Rutz lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Discover Financial Services; National Arbitration Forum, Inc.; National Arbitration Forum, LLC; Dispute Management Services, LLC, doing business as Forthright; Accretive, LLC; Agora lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: April 26, 2013 Filed: May 1, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this action seeking to overturn an adverse arbitration decision regarding domain names, Robert Rutz appeals the district court s1 dismissal of his claims. Upon careful de novo review, see Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal is reviewed de novo), we agree with the district court that Rutz failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v), because his own complaint allegations precluded a finding that his relevant conduct was not unlawful under the Lanham Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v) (domain-name registrant whose domain name has been, inter alia, transferred under implementation of registrar s reasonable policy prohibiting registration of domain name that is identical to, confusingly similar to, or dilutive of another s mark may, upon notice to mark owner, file civil action to establish that registrant s domain-name registration or use was not unlawful under Lanham Act). We further agree that Rutz failed to state a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). See Crest Constr. II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346, 353 (8th Cir. 2011) (RICO claim requires plaintiff to show conduct of enterprise through pattern of racketeering activity); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (defining racketeering activity ). Finally, we agree that he failed to state either a contract claim or a tort claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state claim to relief that is plausible on its face); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (although pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, they still must allege sufficient facts to support claims advanced). We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
