STRIKE MERCHANTS BOWLING CLUB SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION INC v. UNITED STATES BOWLING CONGRESS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-02580-13T1

STRIKE MERCHANTS BOWLING CLUB

SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION, INC.,

A New Jersey Tax Exempt

Corporation, and MINNIE

BANKS-BELTON, individually and

in her capacity as Tournament

Administrator and Chairperson

of the Strike Merchants Board

of Directors,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES BOWLING CONGRESS,

Defendant-Respondent,

and

ERIC A. ELLIOTT, SR.,

Defendant.

__________________________________

March 3, 2015

Argued February 3, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Reisner, Koblitz and Higbee.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Union County, Docket No. C-0071-12.

Joel N. Kreizman and Fernando M. Pinguelo argued the cause for appellants (Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Pinguelo, of counsel and on the brief; Mr. Kreizman, on the brief).

Michael Stiegel (Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP) of the Wisconsin bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for respondent (Robert A. Vort and Mr. Stiegel, attorneys; Mr. Vort, Ted A. Wisnefski (Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP) of the Wisconsin bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Alexis K. Lundgren (Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP) of the Wisconsin bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs, Strike Merchants Bowling Club Scholarship Foundation Inc. (Strike Merchants) and Minnie Banks-Belton (Banks-Belton), Strike Merchant's bowling tournament administrator and chairperson of its board of trustees, appeal from a December 31, 2013 order denying their summary judgment motion and granting summary judgment in favor of defendant United States Bowling Congress (USBC).

On an appeal from the grant of summary judgment, our review is de novo, employing the same Brill1 standard applied by the trial judge. Henry v. N.J. Dep't of Human Servs., 204 N.J. 320, 329-30 (2010). Having reviewed the record in light of that standard, we affirm for the reasons cogently stated by Judge Frederick S. Kessler in his written opinion dated December 31, 2013.

Because Judge Kessler thoroughly and correctly addressed the facts and the law, little additional discussion is warranted here. Briefly, this appeal arises from a dispute between a local bowling organization and its tournament administrator on one side, and the national organization that certifies bowling competitions and sets rules and standards for its members in the conduct of, and participation in, bowling tournaments. Banks-Belton, but not Strike Merchants, was a member of the USBC and as a member, she was bound to comply with its rules.

Strike Merchants held a USBC-sanctioned bowling tournament, of which Banks-Belton was the tournament administrator.2 Two of the tournament events were won by one bowler. Strike Merchants later disqualified that bowler after concluding that he had misstated his rated bowling average by one point. The bowler appealed to the USBC, which ultimately ruled that he had done nothing wrong and ordered Strike Merchants to pay him the prize money, which amounted to about $4500.

It is undisputed that, instead of supporting the USBC ruling, Banks-Belton told Strike Merchants: "As a matter of integrity, you can't pay him." After various unsuccessful USBC appeal proceedings, and notice from USBC of the consequences of continued non-compliance, Strike Merchants still refused to comply with the USBC ruling. As a result, the USBC notified Banks-Belton that she was "indefinitely suspended from membership" in USBC, and she could no longer "hold office" as a USBC-sanctioned team captain or coach, or bowl in any USBC-sanctioned leagues or tournaments. However, USBC also notified Banks-Belton that, after September 15, 2013, she could apply for reinstatement of membership upon proof of compliance with USBC's decision. Thereafter, Banks-Belton and Strike Merchants sued USBC and the bowler.

Judge Kessler dismissed the suit on summary judgment. Among other things, the judge concluded that, while plaintiffs had an interest in the matter sufficient to warrant judicial involvement in the dispute, defendant had not unjustifiably interfered with plaintiffs' interest. See Rutledge v. Gulian, 93 N.J. 113, 118 (1983). Judge Kessler found that USBC's actions were not fundamentally unfair and did not violate public policy. See id. at 122-23.

On this appeal, plaintiffs present the following points of argument for our consideration

THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO APPLY THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL STANDARD TO ITS REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.

A. The Trial Court Construed the Unjustifiable Interference Standard Too Narrowly.

B. An Analysis of the Procedures Leading to the Punishment of [Banks-Belton] Reveals They Were Patently Unfair.

Those contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). As previously noted, we affirm for the reasons stated by Judge Kessler.

Affirmed.

1 Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).

2 As previously noted, Banks-Belton was also the chairperson of Strike Merchants' board of trustees; she had held that office since the organization's inception.