MEMORANDUM OPINION
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Over
the course of fifty years, conservative political activist
Phyllis M. Schlafly created numerous “educational,
advocacy, and policy groups, ” each of which she
branded with an “Eagle”-themed name. (Am. Compl.,
ECF No. 20, ¶¶ 30, 31.) Among those entities are
plaintiffs Eagle Trust Fund (“ETF”) and Eagle
Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund
(“EFE-LDF”), as well as non-party Eagle Forum.
(See Id. ¶¶ 2-3, 6, 31.) Each of
Schlafly's “Eagle” organizations
traditionally received its mail through one central
post-office box in Alton, Illinois; significantly, much of
this mail was addressed to some variation of “Phyllis
Schlafly, Eagle Forum, ” without regard to the
particular “Eagle” entity the correspondence
actually concerned. (See Postal Service Initial
Decision (“Initial Dec.”), Ex. A to Defs.'
Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 17-1, at 4.)[1]This centralized landing spot
for the various entities' correspondence changed in 2016,
when the organization known as Eagle Forum veered from the
flock under new leadership (due to a legal dispute), and
submitted a “change of address” form to the
United States Postal Service (“USPS”).
(Id. at 6.) Plaintiffs ETF and EFE-LDF have now
combined with John Schlafly-Phyllis Schlafly's son, who
serves as a trustee or officer of ETF and EFE-LDF-to file the
instant lawsuit against USPS. (See Am. Compl.
¶¶ 2-4.) Plaintiffs claim that ETF's and
EFE-LDF's mail matter is being improperly diverted to
Eagle Forum's new address, and they request reversal of
an administrative ruling upholding USPS's decision to
honor Eagle Forum's change-of-address request. (See
Id. ¶ 1.)
Before
this Court at present is USPS's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).
(See Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss (“Defs.'
Mot.”), ECF No. 21.) Because Plaintiffs' complaint
does not identify a cause of action and otherwise fails to
state a claim for the purpose of Rule 12(b)(6), as explained
below, USPS's motion will be GRANTED,
and Plaintiffs' action will be DISMISSED
without prejudice. A separate Order consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion will follow.
I.
BACKGROUND
[2]
A.
Basic Facts
Phyllis
Schlafly began leasing P.O. Box 618 in Alton, Illinois in
1967, the same year that she created Eagle Trust Fund.
(See Initial Dec. at 4.) Most, if not all, of her
Eagle-themed organizations received mail at that P.O. Box for
almost fifty years, and as mentioned above, said
correspondence was typically addressed to some variation of
“Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum[.]” (Id.)
This centralization of the different organizations' mail
matter was not inherently problematic because “[a]ll of
Mrs. Schlafly's Eagle entities functioned in
consonance” (Am. Compl. ¶ 32), and Eagle Trust
Fund provided “back-office management, bookkeeping, and
mail services for the other organizations” (Initial
Dec. at 5). Thus, Eagle Trust Fund employees sorted and
distributed the mail that was delivered to P.O. Box 618 (and
a related street address) for all of the “Eagle”
entities, including Eagle Forum. (See Am. Compl.
¶¶ 32, 38.)
In
2016, members of the organization known as Eagle Forum
clashed with Phyllis Schlafly, “based in part on their
holding political and social positions dissonant with Mrs.
Schlafly and the other Eagle entities.” (Id.
¶ 33.) According to the amended complaint, six Eagle
Forum directors “secretly agreed among themselves to
try to take control” of Eagle Forum and “to
remove Phyllis Schlafly and John Schlafly from their
longstanding authority over [Eagle Forum's] accounts and
assets.” (Id. ¶¶ 33, 34.) As a
result, Mrs. Schlafly “formally and expressly revok[ed]
any and all existing licenses that [Eagle Forum] held to use
her name, image, and likeness, as well as any intellectual
property under her control.” (Id. ¶ 36.)
Ultimately, an Illinois state court designated new, acting
leadership for the Eagle Forum organization. (See
id. ¶ 37; Initial Dec. at 5-6.)
Soon
thereafter, Eagle Forum's new leadership filed a
change-of-address request form with USPS, thereby asking that
any and all mail that was addressed to “Eagle
Forum” at P.O. Box 618 and the related street address
be forwarded to Eagle Forum's new place of business.
(See Am. Compl. ¶ 38; Initial Dec. at 6.) As a
trustee of ETF and an officer and director of EFE-LDF
(see Am. Compl. ¶ 4), John Schlafly opposed
Eagle Forum's change-of-address request, leading to the
administrative proceedings that underlie the instant mail
dispute. (See Initial Dec. at 6); see also
39 C.F.R. Part 965 (governing “Proceedings Relative to
Mail Disputes”).
On
September 15, 2017, an Administrative Judge issued USPS's
Initial Decision regarding the mail-matter conflict.
(See Initial Dec. at 3); see also 39 C.F.R.
§ 965.11.The Administrative Judge addressed the question
of “how mail addressed to Eagle Forum at P.O. Box 618
and 322 State Street should be delivered” (Initial Dec.
at 6), and eventually concluded that “Eagle Forum-and
not Eagle Trust [Fund] or Eagle Forum Education and Legal
Defense Fund-should control delivery of mail addressed to
Eagle Forum” (id. at 8).[3] In so finding,
the Administrative Judge analyzed
two key concepts . . . . First, as it applies to all mail
disputes, the sender's intent is paramount. Second, when
a mail dispute concerns how mail to an organization should be
delivered, the mail must be delivered under the order of the
organization's president or equivalent official.
(Id. at 7 (internal citations omitted).)
As to
the question of the sender's intent, the Administrative
Judge found that “[t]he parties agree that [the
disputed] mail addressed to Eagle Forum can actually be
intended for any of Mrs. Schlafly's organizations,
including Eagle Trust [Fund], Eagle Forum, and Eagle Forum
Education and Legal Defense Fund[.]” (Id.)
“Because of th[e] complex organizational web [of
Eagle-themed organizations receiving mail at the same
address], the sender's intent for items addressed to
Eagle Forum is difficult, if not impossible, to
determine.” (Id. at 7-8.) Thus, the
Administrative Judge concluded that it “becomes
necessary to look elsewhere for the evidence necessary to
decide how the mail should be delivered.” (Id.
at 8.)
Turning
to the second component of his inquiry, the Administrative
Judge found that “there is no dispute that Eunie Smith
is currently the acting president of Eagle Forum, entitling
her to direct delivery of mail addressed to Eagle
Forum.” (Id.) Although John Schlafly had
argued that “Eagle Forum really means Eagle Trust
[Fund] or Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund[,
]” and that “the term Eagle Forum encompasses the
entire Schlafly network, all of which falls under Eagle Trust
[Fund, ]” the Administrative Judge concluded that
“[t]hese arguments fail because the Domestic Mail
Manual, which sets out the procedures for mail delivery by
the Postal Service, provides that an addressee controls the
delivery of its mail, and that in the absence of a contrary
order the mail is delivered as addressed.”
(Id. (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted).)
“To allow either [ETF or EFE-LDF] to control delivery
of mail addressed to Eagle Forum would conflict with the
plain meaning” of USPS regulations. (Id. at
8-9); see also 39 C.F.R. § 211.2(a)(2)
(establishing that “[t]he regulations of the Postal
Service consist of[, ]” among other things,
“[t]he Mailing Standards of the United States Postal
Service, Domestic Mail Manual”). The Administrative
Judge therefore determined that “all mail being held,
or hereafter received, addressed to Eagle Forum at both P.O.
Box 618, Alton, Illinois, and 322 State Street, Suite 301,
Alton, Illinois, [should] be delivered as directed by Eunie
Smith, the acting president of Eagle Forum.” (Initial
Dec. at 9.)
John
Schlafly appealed the Administrative Judge's decision,
see 39 C.F.R.§ 965.12, and a Judicial Officer
(“JO”) affirmed. (See Postal Service
Decision (“Dec.on Appeal”), Ex. B. to Defs.'
Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 17-2, at 5 (concluding that,
“[a]s the only mail here in dispute is that directed to
Eagle Forum (or Eagle Forum, Attention: Phyllis Schlafly),
and Eagle Forum has moved, it remains entitled to redirect
such mail to its present address”).) John Schlafly
argued “that the addressee in question-Eagle
Forum-‘may not file a change-of-address order'
under [section 507.2.1.5 of the Domestic Mail Manual] because
the disputed mail was ‘originally addressed to the
addressee at an organization, business, place of
employment, or other affiliation'” (id. at
4 (emphasis added))[4]; however, the JO reasoned that
[b]y its own terms, the word ‘addressee' in
[section] 507.2.1.5 means ‘an individual or a business
entity,' not a combination of an individual or business
entity to whom the mail piece is directed and the
address to which it is directed. Indeed, [section] 507.2.1.5
deals with a situation in which mail is sent to ‘an
organization, business, place of employment, or other
affiliation' at which the individual or business entity
to whom it is directed (the addressee) no longer conducts
business or is employed. That is why the second sentence of
[the provision] then allows the organization or business
entity currently located at the physical address written on
the piece of mail to ‘change the address (but not the
addressee's name)' on that mail to allow it to be
redirected to the addressee (that is, to the individual or
business entity whose name appears on that piece of mail but
who no longer is located at that physical address).
(Id. (emphasis in original).)
The JO
continued: “[h]ere, the mail in dispute is being sent
to Eagle Forum at a physical address (P.O. Box 618 and 322
State Street), not to Eagle Forum at Eagle Trust
Fund or another of the many organizations and business
entities also located at that physical address.”
(Id. (emphasis in original).) Thus, the JO
determined that the Domestic Mail Manual provision that
Schlafly sought to use to reverse the Administrative
Judge's underlying decision “does not apply and
does not prohibit the change of address sought by Eagle
Forum.” (Id.; see also Id. at 5
(clarifying that “[u]nless the face of a piece of
disputed mail indicates that it is directed to Eagle Forum
and to another business entity, for purposes of
these mail delivery regulations, only one addressee is
involved” (emphasis in original)).) In short, the JO
determined that, “if the words on a piece of mail
identify only Eagle ...