Lawsuit against USPSA

[IVC]

10 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

It may be that the only people that join are those that wish to participate internationally, along with those that wish to use the same rule-book as the rest of the world. I don't know what those numbers are and neither will anyone else until a USIPSC organization is formed.

We already have this. People who participate in any IPSC competitions are IPSC members and will be subject to the IPSC rules for that match. 

 

10 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

A more stream-lined and efficient organization would have costs significantly lower than USPSA; If it were me I'd run it as an LLC not a 501(c)(3) and invest excess profit back into L1 clubs to improve their facilities/equipment.

While you might have a good intent here, it wouldn't work in the USA. Every time you have someone in charge of funds distributing them to someone else you're begging for a US-style political corruption. 

[BritinUSA]

2 minutes ago, RJH said:

So, tell me your legal background so I'll know if I should listen to you LOL

I've mentioned earlier that I'm not a lawyer. I joined IPSC around 1990 (UK) and USPSA in 1998. I was living in Colorado when the magazine ban went into effect so I'm very familiar with law and its many issues. 

[IVC]

7 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

 I think @Rob Boudrie point is very clear. Item (K) clearly shows the grounds for appeal of the suspension. This could stand alone from the other issues of the corporation/bylaws.

He claims it's "unreasonable" and against the "public policy." 

 

What specifically is unreasonable and what specific public policy does this violate? If the corporation has an open-ended right to determine what is detrimental to its interest, then the corporation gets to decide what is detrimental to its interest. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that a corporation can use, well, because whoever owns the corporation makes the rules. 

[IVC]

10 minutes ago, RJH said:

So, tell me your legal background so I'll know if I should listen to you LOL

You shouldn't listen to anyone on the Internet, including me. 

[BritinUSA]

public policy

1. In general, public policy refers to the concepts that underlie social rules, which are frequently unwritten and implemented through programs as a course of action established and/or legislated, generally by a government or non-profit organization, in response to social challenges.
2. In law, public policy means the principle that harm to the public benefit is a grounds for denying the legitimacy of a contract or other transactions.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_policy

 

It seems clear to me, see item 2 above.

 

I think they are claiming that USPSA's decision to host the Nationals in a State with the magazine law, and their assertion that violating that law was not going to be an issue is against the public benefit. That would then lead to a claim that the legitimacy of the membership contract/suspension is invalid.

Edited September 11, 2023 by BritinUSA

[858]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

 

In fact if the USPSA had the books in order, there would be nothing left in the complaint. 

 

But it didn't so here we are. 

[Gene_WI]

2 minutes ago, 858 said:

 

But it didn't so here we are. 

 

Not only that but people making six figure salaries were unable to ensure basic corporate compliance. Think about that...

[varminter22]

10 hours ago, konkapot said:

Random thoughts. 

 

Why not just decline to shoot the match in Colorado? Get your match free refunded and call it a day? Life is short, and using bandwidth engaging in legal action against a shooting organization is very low on my "to do" list. 

 

USPSA is not three guys sitting around a table at a gunshow. It's a multimillion dollar organization with highly paid staff. It's reasonable to expect the staff to be doing their job and doing it in a reasonably civilized manner. 

I got a good laugh reading this!  

[IVC]

1 hour ago, Gene_WI said:

 

Not only that but people making six figure salaries were unable to ensure basic corporate compliance. Think about that...

Agreed, but the lawsuit is supposed to be about a suspension, not about paperwork. 

[IVC]

1 hour ago, 858 said:

 

But it didn't so here we are. 

Which is my point. The lawsuit is a pretty massive stretch with how the civil cases work. 

[RJH]

3 minutes ago, IVC said:

Which is my point. The lawsuit is a pretty massive stretch with how the civil cases work. 

 

So, do you work in law? You seem pretty positive on this stuff so maybe you do. Once again I do not so I'm just asking a question not trying to be argumentative. Just looking at all sides

[IVC]

No, I'm not in the law but I own and run (small, closely held) corporations (IT) and I've been involved in lawsuits, mostly intellectual property issues. I also closely follow gun rights cases working their way to the Supreme Court and read the actual filings and opinions. We have very active gun rights forum in CA (CalGuns), which is about politics, law, litigation and alike. Many of the attorneys who are parties to the cases participate. And many members from here are also members there. 
 

The only thing I'm sure about is that it's not a good idea to have this thread on the shooting forum. We should stick to shooting. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by IVC

[858]

29 minutes ago, IVC said:

Agreed, but the lawsuit is supposed to be about a suspension, not about paperwork. 

 

The lawsuit is about Joe being banned defacto from all practical shooting competition globally. Joe wasn't banned for anything he said specifically so why would he argue one way or the other over what was said? If you read the exibits, Sherwyn stated in writing to Joe he was being banned for bringing disrepute to the corporation in the future. 

 

USPSA's response should be interesting. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by 858

[RJH]

2 minutes ago, IVC said:

 

The only thing I'm sure about is that it's not a good idea to have this thread on the shooting forum. We should stick to shooting. 

 

I completely disagree with this. If there's issues we need to know about them. So far they have been discussed in a pretty reasonable manner and I think that needs to happen.

 

Many of us here pay dues both yearly and per event to USPSA and want to know that our money is going to a decently run organization.

 

I don't get on Instagram or anything like that so this is my main source of information on the goings on of USPSA leadership.

 

As I've stated before I don't know the specifics of the legal jargon but some things do seem kind of fishy to me at best. Having a place where members can see both sides of this discussion seem very important, and I would hate to see this thread done away with.

 

Sticking to shooting is one thing, but if an organization is being run incorrectly that's something completely different. I don't know if there's any fault anywhere, but bringing any issues to light shouldn't be a problem and if there are no issues then the membership will know that everything is good to go. Transparency should never be an issue for a non-profit like USPSA. And if it is an issue, that is an issue

[BritinUSA]

I just wanted to say a huge 'Thank you' to everyone who has posted in this thread. The discussion has been civil and enlightening, I hope that will continue as we move forward.

 

Hopefully, USPSA will issue a statement of some kind in the next few days. I am not sure they will go into specifics as they will probably have received some legal advice to limit what they say in public.

[Neomet]

A couple points, and I have played in this area of litigation for over 30 years. 

 

1. A complaint, is as pointed out by others already, only what plaintiff is alleging. A plaintiff can allege that the moon is made of blue cheese. This complaint is more specific in certain points than most though. Some of these allegations seem to at least have some factual support on first blush. 

 

2. Do not expect a detailed explanation of their defenses in USPSA's answer. There will simply be blanket denials. This is standard practice, and does not indicate USPSA is trying to hide anything or is doing something nefarious. 

 

3. This will not move forward quickly. It is civil litigation. There will initially be paper discovery which will likely take months, if not longer. Then depositions will be set. There will be a lot of depos due to the number of individuals in USPSA that will need to be deposed. Of course, the plaintiff will also be deposed. 

 

4. Some have mentioned this is an E&O claim. It is not. This is a D&O (Directors and Officers) loss. E&O covers negligence causes of action (mistakes), D&O affords some coverage for intentional acts of directors and officers of the corporation.

 

5. The carrier will be hard pressed to disclaim coverage because/if their insured didn't pay their fees. Insurance contracts have specified conditions under which coverage can be disclaimed. Even then, disclaiming coverage or rescinding the policy is at best, an uphill battle. It appears in this case the carrier would need to claim material misrepresentation and attempt to rescind the policy. That rarely, rarely is successful and would end up in its own litigation via a dec action. Also expensive for the carrier. 

 

7. This is not just a matter asking for injunctive relief to have the plaintiff reinstated in USPSA. The plaintiff is additionally asking for compensatory and punitive damages for the actions of the organization. 

 

Hope this helps some.  

Edited September 12, 2023 by Neomet
mixed up parties in the litigation.

[Fishbreath]

6 hours ago, Neomet said:

This is not just a matter asking for injunctive relief to have the defendant reinstated in USPSA. The defendant is additionally asking for compensatory and punitive damages for the actions of the organization. 

 

This is the part I'm most interested in, and on which I've seen the least discussion. What exactly is Joe's injury here, beyond that which would be redressed by reinstating him?

 

$25,000 in specifically compensatory damages for "I couldn't participate in USPSA matches" seems like a pretty tall order to back up. There's plenty of IDPA around, and a smattering of outlaw matches. Very different to us, but would you want to try to convince a court that they're so different that being deprived of USPSA specifically for a year or two is $25,000 of pain? Could a judge, or the average juror, tell the difference between a USPSA stage and an IDPA stage if you showed them hat cam video of both? (It's a less valid argument, I think, but on the other side of the ledger, two years off from USPSA would probably save me five figures.)

 

My first reaction is that this is at least as much about discovery as anything else.

[Rob Boudrie]

12 hours ago, IVC said:

What specifically is unreasonable and what specific public policy does this violate?

An argument can be made that taking action against a member for truthfully pointing out that the organization is suborning violation of law, and not proactively warning members of such, is against public policy. 

 

About the $25k - different courts handle "small dollar" cases, and the court in which a case is heard depends on the dollar mount requested.   This is probably why the amount is simply listed as "In excess of $25k", and it prevents bouncing it down to a lower court.

 

As to the amount of pain worth $25K - subjective and hard to judge.  But note that the pleading also requests punitive damages.

The only statement USPSA can reasonably make is either "we cannot comment on pending litigation" or "We deny the claims and cannot comment on ongoing litigation".  The real question is "Will USPSA even mention the existence of the suit in any official communication to the members?

Edited September 11, 2023 by Rob Boudrie

[Neomet]

1 hour ago, Fishbreath said:

 

This is the part I'm most interested in, and on which I've seen the least discussion. What exactly is Joe's injury here, beyond that which would be redressed by reinstating him?

 

$25,000 in specifically compensatory damages for "I couldn't participate in USPSA matches" seems like a pretty tall order to back up. There's plenty of IDPA around, and a smattering of outlaw matches. Very different to us, but would you want to try to convince a court that they're so different that being deprived of USPSA specifically for a year or two is $25,000 of pain? Could a judge, or the average juror, tell the difference between a USPSA stage and an IDPA stage if you showed them hat cam video of both? (It's a less valid argument, I think, but on the other side of the ledger, two years off from USPSA would probably save me five figures.)

 

My first reaction is that this is at least as much about discovery as anything else.

 

This would be for a jury to decide. A jury has very wide latitude in awarding general damages. They will take what plaintiff says about how this impacted their life and attach a dollar value to that. Awards from different juries for similar fact patterns can vary widely. One jury could take  your point and think that plaintiff could still shoot other disciplines and award a low amount. Another might believe that USPSA was the sole purpose of plaintiff's life and come back with a high award. Since COVID, we have seen a huge surge in awards for general damages across the board. No idea why or if it will continue, but there it is. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Neomet

[varminter22]

1 hour ago, Fishbreath said:

 

This is the part I'm most interested in, and on which I've seen the least discussion. What exactly is Joe's injury here, beyond that which would be redressed by reinstating him?

 

$25,000 in specifically compensatory damages for "I couldn't participate in USPSA matches" seems like a pretty tall order to back up. There's plenty of IDPA around, and a smattering of outlaw matches. Very different to us, but would you want to try to convince a court that they're so different that being deprived of USPSA specifically for a year or two is $25,000 of pain? Could a judge, or the average juror, tell the difference between a USPSA stage and an IDPA stage if you showed them hat cam video of both? (It's a less valid argument, I think, but on the other side of the ledger, two years off from USPSA would probably save me five figures.)

 

My first reaction is that this is at least as much about discovery as anything else.

Recall the McDonald's "hot coffee" case ...  

[Dutchman195]

14 hours ago, IVC said:

What happens when nobody joins the new organization and local marches just keep operating under the current USPSA rules?

 

The props, bays, targets, setup knowledge, stage design, organization, running of the matches, etc. are all part of the local clubs. USPSA is not some pariah organization holding an iron fist over shooting sports. It's an organization that provides consistent rules and gets nominal amount for each classifier. If someone takes over, the local clubs can continue operating without as much as a blink or a hiccup by ignoring it completely. Especially if the name "USPSA" can now be used freely because the organization no longer exists. 

Can confirm that the majority of the weekend hobby people that shoot only our local match and nothing else, not only dont vote in the elections, they also dont care what the sport is called. They'll just keep showing up and blindly supporting the match, the local club and the BoD without any care in the world. -So really it could all go away tomorrow and I would say the majority of the people wont be affected at all.

[Dutchman195]

11 hours ago, IVC said:

 

The only thing I'm sure about is that it's not a good idea to have this thread on the shooting forum. We should stick to shooting. 

Disagree, It absolutely needs to be known and parroted to all the members. The people that have turned a blind eye to the mismanagement and said "oh it doesn't affect me because...." are the reason it got to this boiling point. 

I believe if we were all more involved and the BoD didn't run a behind closed door operation (which we allow by who we vote in) then it wouldn't have gotten here and issues could have been addressed as they came up and where still small.....as opposed to people suing the org.

 

Edited thought: I spend many thousands of dollars a year to shoot as I'm sure many people on here do.....it is extremely relevant to the forum. If it all goes away then there will be no point to have the forum at all. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Dutchman195

[Racinready300ex]

7 minutes ago, Dutchman195 said:

Can confirm that the majority of the weekend hobby people that shoot only our local match and nothing else, not only dont vote in the elections, they also dont care what the sport is called. They'll just keep showing up and blindly supporting the match, the local club and the BoD without any care in the world. -So really it could all go away tomorrow and I would say the majority of the people wont be affected at all.

 

Maybe, hopefully we don't have to find out.

 

Lots of people at locals worry about classification, if the org goes classifiers go and those that are drawn to that fade away. Then I'd worry as time passes not running under a real rule book, and just running under what USPSA was when it existed. And no new RO's taking classes. The rules will start to slip, and vary from club to club. 

 

So if it went away tomorrow, I think you're right tomorrow many aren't effected. But, I don't think uspsa on the ground would last all that long without a org behind it.

[Maximis228]

80+ person local USPSA Match yesterday. This was the main topic of discussion BY FAR. Lots of varying opinions on how things should be handled and what things should look like moving forward...

 

but one thing is for sure... We all share a common love for this sport/hobby. We might not all agree on everything, but nothing beats a day on the range with you buddies. I think many can forget this as time goes on (Myself included). 

[BritinUSA]

With regards to the compensation claim; I don't think the amount is excessive, as others have stated this is an expensive sport and many of us have spent many thousands of dollars on equipment/training over the years.

 

The plaintiff has not only been suspended from the organization, but as a consequence he has been prevented from competing world-wide. So his investments of equipment, time and effort have been nullified while the suspension is in effect.

 

I think the respondents are correct that any statement from USPSA will be rather bland to begin with, especially with regard to the lawsuit.

 

However, I think they do have to address the issue of corporate status and explain how that situation occurred, and what steps they are taking to prevent a re-occurrence.  
 

The secondary problem if whether this affects the org's 501(c)(3) status since 2018 must also be addressed.