A federal judge from the District of New Jersey has granted a motion to dismiss the claim of a professional baseball team, which had alleged that a businessman, who owns and operates multiple Minor League Baseball (MiLB) teams, had breached his fiduciary duty, “undermining negotiations (between the two parties, and) impacting various entities in minor league baseball.”
By way of background, the plaintiff Sports Enterprises, Inc. (SEI) owns and operates the Salem-Keizer Volcanoes, formerly a minor league baseball team. Five years ago, MLB decided to contract the number of MiLB teams by 25 percent. The Volcanoes became one of the casualties, leaving it with no affiliation with any MLB club.
SEI sued Marvin Goldklang, alleging that he and other peers in ownership “destroyed” the Volcanoes and enriched themselves.
After the first complaint was dismissed, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC), focusing its action to a single claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Marvin Goldklang. Goldklang “was a member of the Board of Trustees (BOT) of the National Association, a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. Members of the BOT were entrusted as fiduciaries under Florida law, the express terms of the NAA (National Association Agreement), and common law, and charged with protecting the interests of the National Association, its 14 member-leagues, and the 160 MiLB clubs operating under the NAA.”
Count 1 of the SAC notes that Goldklang was a director under Florida law because he was a member of the BOT of the National Association. It also alleges that pursuant to Florida law, all members of the BOT, including Goldklang, “owed SEI the fiduciary duty to act in good faith, with care of an ordinarily prudent person, and in the best interests of the National Association and its leagues and clubs,” according to a Florida statute.
In his motion to dismiss, Goldklang countered, inter alia, that the plain language of the cited Florida statute clarifies that the duties imposed by the law is limited to the not-for-profit entity (i.e., the National Association) and therefore would not extend to individual members like (him). Indeed, the statute states that the relevant duty is limited to the ‘corporation’:
(1) A director shall discharge his or her duties as a director, including his or her duties as a member of a committee:
(b) With the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances; and
(c) In a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.
Fla. Stat. § 617.0830 (emphasis added).”
The court noted that case law “supports the proposition that the statute is limited to the entity and does not extend to the entity’s members. Stewart v. American Association of Physician Specialists, No. 13-01670, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72102, 2014 WL 2197795, at * (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2014) (‘Stewart does not allege any independent relationship of trust from which the Court could imply a fiduciary relationship. Rather, Stewart‘s sole contention is that AAPS and the Board owe her a fiduciary duty because she is a member of AAPS. . . . Stewart offers no authority that supports her position that the directors of a not-for-profit corporation owe their members—rather than the corporation—fiduciary duties.’)”
The plaintiff argued that Stewart “is distinguishable because the plaintiff did not allege any facts about the nature of the fiduciary relationship between the directors of the non-profit and the members other than their status as directors and members. However, none of the facts that the plaintiff alleged about the nature of the relationship between Goldklang and SEI specifically demonstrates a special relationship of trust or confidence that would give rise to a fiduciary duty.” Paradiso v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 22-02042, 2022 U.S Dist. LEXIS 212711, at *10-12 (D.N.J. Nov. 23, 2022).
Thus, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, pursuant the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)6. Moreover, “because further amendment would be futile,” the court dismissed the SAC with prejudice.
Sports Enterprises, INC. v. Marvin Goldklang; D.N.J.; Civil Action No. 23-02198; 1/22/25
…
Esports Legend Prevails In Defamation Lawsuit Against Youtuber In Australian Court
The District Court of Queensland has awarded esports pioneer Billy Mitchell nearly $400,000 AUD after he filed a defamation lawsuit against YouTuber Karl Jobst, alleging that the defendant made harmful public statements.
In Case No. 136/21, the Court awarded Mitchell damages plus assessed interest and further ordered Jobst to pay Mitchell’s legal costs with the final amount to be determined at a future hearing.
In delivering his judgment, Judge Barlow stated:
“The obvious pleasure that Mr. Jobst took in attacking [Billy Mitchell] and his gleeful anticipation of litigation simply added to Mr. Mitchell’s emotions. He also suffered adverse physical effects in the short term.”
The case arose from public statements made by Jobst on social media, in which he dismissed the potential for legal consequences due to his Australian residency. Among the statements cited in court included the following:
• “I have restrained myself from talking about this. But I think it is now time for me to step up. F*** Billy Mitchell.”
• In response to a commenter suggesting legal action: “I’m in Australia so good luck.”
Mitchell responded by retaining legal counsel in Queensland and initiating legal proceedings. Following a full trial in September 2024, the Court ruled on March 31, 2025 that Jobst had defamed Mitchell.
“I felt it was necessary to defend my name and professional reputation in the face of false and damaging allegations,” said Mitchell. “I appreciate the Court’s careful consideration of the facts and am thankful for the unwavering support of my family, friends, and legal team throughout this process.”
