Markey v. Jonathan Club

2002 WL 1904416 (2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was a member of D. D was organized for social and recreational purposes as a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation. P and three underage girls were caught at the Club's Santa Monica beach facility. Criminal charges were filed. P plead no contest for annoying or molesting a child under the age of 18. P was placed on probation and paid a fine and made restitution to the alleged victims. P was ordered to have no contact with the girls, and was required to undergo psychological testing. D's board of directors considered the status of P's membership. It had decided to expel him. Most important to D was the location of the incident. The board terminated P's membership under bylaw 8.1, which authorized the expulsion of a member for conduct that was 'prejudicial to the best interests, welfare, character, and reputation of the Club . . . .' P had a right to a hearing no less than five days before his termination took effect. It was scheduled, and P was represented by two lawyers. Again, the board voted unanimously to terminate P's membership, effective September 3, 1999. P then sued D and filed a pleading styled as a 'PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE' seeking to compel D to reinstate his membership. P alleged that D violated its own bylaws because it did not provide him a hearing before the full board. P alleged that the hearing before the committee instead of the entire board violated Corporations Code section 7341, which sets forth the procedural protections that should be used when a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation such as D decides to expel or suspend a member. Because there was no appeal from the board's decision, P alleged he had no adequate remedy at law, thus justifying a writ of mandate declaring the board's decision void and ordering his reinstatement as a D member. The court tentatively denied P's petition. When the hearing began, the court's tentative decision touched off a heated exchange over whether D's membership conveyed sufficient property rights to preclude D's use of the no contest plea. The court sided with D and the final judgment, written by D, contained no findings and simply stated that the petition had been denied. P moved for a new trial, and trial court denied the motion because it was P's duty to raise all applicable legal issues and present all his supporting evidence at trial. This appeal followed.