A federal judge from the Northern District of California has denied the California Cricket Academy’s (CCA) request for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented the United States Cricket Association, Inc. (USCA) from holding its national election. The CCA and co-plaintiff Ram Varadarajan, a candidate for President of the USACA, alleged the elections were a sham.
In so ruling, the court found that the CCA had not exhausted all of its remedies because an auditor had the authority to determine challenges to the right to vote.
USACA is the governing body of cricket in the United States and an associate member of the International Cricket Council, the international governing body for the sport of cricket. USACA comprises more than 40 cricket leagues dispersed throughout eight regions in the United States. Member leagues in “good standing” and “otherwise eligible to vote” elect a USACA Board of Directors comprising 13 individuals: a president; first vice president; second vice president; executive secretary; treasurer; and a representative from each of the eight regions.
Varadarajan, a resident and citizen of California, is a cricket enthusiast and was a nominee for president of the USACA Board. CCA was a full member of the USACA in good standing from July 2008 until the winter of 2012.
On February 26, 2012, the USACA Board held a closed meeting, in which it found that only 15 member leagues were eligible to vote and decided that 26 member leagues, including CCA, were “noncompliant” and would be barred from voting in the national election.
The plaintiffs sued, alleging that the board’s actions surrounding the election violated the USACA Constitution and New York’s Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. They also alleged that the Board’s actions violated the unlawful prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
On March 15, 2012, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Specifically, they sought: (1) a declaration that the Defendant’s actions violated the above-mentioned provisions of the USACA Constitution and N-PCL; (2) a declaration that eligible voting members are those members who were in good standing as of November 30, 2011.
On March 26, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to: (1) preclude USACA from proceeding with the election on April 14, 2012; (2) enjoin the USACA from nullifying any regional elections held in 2011; (3) direct the USACA to hold the national election no later than May 18, 2012, and to permit full member leagues that were in good standing as of November 30, 2011 to vote; and (4) appoint an independent auditor to circulate ballots, collect, and count the votes, and announce the results.
In its analysis, the court noted that to establish Article III standing, a plaintiff “must demonstrate that they satisfy three irreducible requirements: (1) they have suffered an ‘injury in fact,’ i.e., ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical’; (2) the injury is ‘fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant’; and (3) it is ‘likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.’ Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992).”
The court found that Varadarajan “lacks Article III standing because he has not clearly shown the invasion of a legally protected interest. (His) claims are therefore dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3).” It also refused to permissively join Varadarajan or allow him to bring a third-party claim because, under New York law, which is applicable in the diversity action, a third-party is not allowed to bring a contractual claim unless such a right is clearly evidenced in the contract. The court concluded that “The USACA Constitution, an agreement among member leagues, does not clearly evidence an intent to permit enforcement by candidates for leadership positions.”
Additionally, the court agreed with USACA that the CCA does not have standing to bring a third-party claim on behalf of the other member leagues. The CCA had requested in its complaint that the court “reinstate the rights of all of the leagues disenfranchised by the Board in February. The court found that there was not evidence of a hinderance that would prevent the other member leagues from seeking redress.”
The court decided not to issue a preliminary injunction for a number of reasons.
First, the court found that CCA has not exhausted its remedies provided under the USACA Constitution.
Thus, the plaintiffs had “failed to show that they are likely to succeed on the merits or even ‘a fair chance of success on the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.’”
Ram Varadarajan and California Cricket Academy v. United States of America Cricket Association, INC.; N.D. Cal.;Case No.: 12-CV-01306-LHK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52550’ 4/13/12
Attorneys of record: (for plaintiffs) David Marroso, LEAD ATTORNEY, Los Angeles, CA; James M Pearl, O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Joshua Rosenberg, Los Angeles, CA; James Pearl, Los Angeles, CA. (for defendant) Leslie Mark Werlin, LEAD ATTORNEY, McGuireWoods LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Marshall Beil, PRO HAC VICE, McGuire Woods LLP, New York, NY.
