Gordon v. S. Tex. Youth Soccer Ass'n, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 February 2021
• Docket Number: NO. 03-19-00129-CV,03-19-00129-CV
• Parties: John GORDON, Appellant, South Texas Youth Soccer Association, Inc., Cross-Appellant v. SOUTH TEXAS YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee, John Gordon, Cross-Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

623 S.W.3d 25

John GORDON, Appellant, South Texas Youth Soccer Association, Inc., Cross-Appellant

v.SOUTH TEXAS YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee, John Gordon, Cross-Appellee

NO. 03-19-00129-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.

Filed: February 19, 2021

Troy L. Voelker, for Appellant.

Daniel J. Kasprzak, Houston, Matthew Foerster, Austin, for Appellee.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

OPINION

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

This appeal primarily concerns the requirement to exhaust the administrative remedies of a voluntary association¹ within the context of the judicial nonintervention doctrine, a longstanding and "well-established rule of law that the civil courts will not interfere with the internal operations of [voluntary] associations of private individuals." Dallas Athletic Club Protective Comm. v. Dallas Athletic Club , 407 S.W.2d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—Austin 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (quoting Gaines v. Farmer , 55 Tex.Civ.App. 601, 119 S.W. 874, 877 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1909, writ dism'd) ). Here, the South Texas Youth Soccer Association, Inc. (STYSA) suspended John Gordon. Bypassing STYSA's internal grievance procedures to appeal the suspension, Gordon sued in trial court. STYSA moved to dismiss Gordon's suit for lack of jurisdiction, which the trial court granted, and moved for attorney's fees, which the trial court denied. Both parties appealed. For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In June 2016, Gordon was appointed to the board of directors for Round Rock Soccer Association, Inc. (RRSA), after being involved with RRSA as a coach, a donor, and a licensed referee who would referee games within STYSA's jurisdiction.

RRSA is a local soccer association in the Capital Area Youth Soccer Association (CAYSA), which is a member of the regional youth soccer association STYSA. STYSA governs south Texas for the United States Youth Soccer Association (USYSA), a division of the United States Soccer Federation (USSF).²

In November 2016, Gordon was removed from RRSA's board of directors for alleged aggressive behavior. The next month, Gordon sued the members of RRSA's board of directors (the RRSA Members), seeking declaratory relief that his removal violated RRSA's bylaws and the Texas Organizations Code and petitioning for writ of mandamus ordering the board to rescind its removal and to produce minutes of its meetings.

In February 2017, STYSA instituted an internal grievance proceeding against Gordon for alleged violations of STYSA's procedures in section 4—titled Discipline, Protest, Grievance and Appeal Procedures—of its administrative handbook.³ Specifically, STYSA alleged that Gordon's suit against the RRSA Members violated sections 4.4.15 and 4.4.16, which provide for the suspension of a person from all soccer activities for invoking the aid of the courts without exhausting administrative remedies and impose liability for STYSA's costs in defending the action, including for attorney's fees.⁴

The STYSA appeals committee conducted a hearing with Gordon present by telephone and in April, the committee issued a decision based on the testimony and information provided. The committee found by unanimous vote that Gordon violated sections 4.4.15 and 4.4.16 and suspended Gordon "from any STYSA-sanctioned events for a period of one (1) year (effective April 11, 2017)," providing however that if Gordon "follows the proper course of action outlined in STYSA [sections] 4.4.15 and 4.4.16, his suspension will be probated." In a letter sent to Gordon the day after the hearing, STYSA enclosed the decision and stated, "You have the right to appeal this decision to the [USSF] Appeals Committee within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter. A copy of USSF Bylaw 705 and a Notice of Appeal form are enclosed with this letter. "⁵ Gordon testified that although he received the letter, he did not intend to appeal the STYSA appeals committee's decision to the USSF. He also stipulated that he did not initiate any grievance or any appeal of any protest or grievance procedure following receipt of the letter.

In May, Gordon amended his petition to add STYSA as a defendant. As alleged in his live petition—the fifth amended petition—Gordon claims that in early May he was removed from refereeing and "forced to leave the field" because he had "been banned from any participation in any STYSA-sponsored activity," that he "suffered the loss of payment for this game," and that he has "been unable to referee games for which he would otherwise have been able to be employed and receive[ ] compensation." He sued STYSA for tortious interference with contract for interfering with his "legitimate contractual rights to act as an independent contractor providing refereeing services to South Texas Soccer Referees," for declaratory judgment that his suit "is not precluded by" STYSA's procedures, for injunctive relief stopping STYSA from preventing Gordon from acting as a referee in youth soccer matches, and for attorney's fees.

The RRSA Members filed a plea to the jurisdiction and STYSA moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the judicial nonintervention doctrine and alleging that Gordon failed to exhaust administrative remedies by bringing his lawsuit instead of following the procedures for an internal appeal of his suspension as prescribed by STYSA's constitution, bylaws, and rules. STYSA's motion to dismiss also included a request "that this Court award STYSA with recovery of the attorney fees and costs incurred in pursuing this Motion." In November 2017, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the RRSA Members' plea and STYSA's motion to dismiss. At the hearing, the parties did not discuss, argue, or present evidence as to attorney's fees. In February 2018, the trial court granted STYSA's motion and dismissed Gordon's suit against STYSA with prejudice without addressing attorney's fees. The record does not include a ruling on the RRSA Members' plea.

A year later, the trial court granted Gordon and the RRSA Members' joint motion to dismiss their claims against each other with prejudice. Gordon represents to this Court that the issues between the RRSA Members and Gordon settled. STYSA then moved for entry and award of attorney's fees, alleging that Gordon threatened an appeal earlier that month and demanded settlement. STYSA claimed that "Gordon's letter re-initiated this matter for STYSA and forced STYSA to re-engage counsel and incur additional costs" and therefore that "STYSA seeks to elect to enforce its right to recover attorney's fees and costs" under section 4.4.16, which provides as a penalty for failure to exhaust administrative remedies that the person is liable to STYSA "for all expenses incurred by STYSA ... in defending the action, including, but not limited to: (1) court costs; (2) attorney's fees; (3) cost of litigation" and other specified expenses. STYSA requested $14,367.69 for attorney's fees and expenses and submitted an affidavit to support the award. The court denied STYSA's request for attorney's fees because it "was not made pursuant to a timely counterclaim."⁶

Gordon then requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the court entered in April 2019, finding, as relevant here:

12. STYSA has a Constitution, Bylaws, and Administrative Handbook that govern disciplinary actions and provide an appellate process for disciplinary decisions.

13. Gordon is bound by the Constitution, Bylaws, and Administrative Handbook as a member of RRSA's Board of Directors and a participant under STYSA as a referee.

14. The Constitution, in section 4.4.1, states that a complainant shall pursue a protest, appeal, and grievance to the following bodies in order:

a. One Member Association appeals body, then

b. STYSA Appeals Committee, then

c. STYSA Executive Committee only in disputes between Member Associations or their member clubs, then

d. USSF National Appeals Committee.

15. The Constitution, Bylaws, and Administrative Handbook state that a member can appeal a suspension decision to the [USSF] Appeals Committee within ten (10) days of a member's receipt of a suspension.

16. The Constitution states that "Members agree not to resort to use of the courts until all administrative remedies are exhausted. Further, as penalty for breach of this agreement, members agree that by doing so they will be suspe[n]ded from all soccer activities and, further, liable for all of STYSA's litigation fees and costs including the time of its personnel."

17. STYSA suspended Gordon for a period of one year.

18. Gordon filed this litigation without appealing the suspension to the USSF Appeals Committee.

The court then made conclusions of law that Gordon is bound by the STYSA procedures, that STYSA as a voluntary association is entitled to set forth internal procedures not subject to judicial review, that Gordon did not exhaust all administrative remedies prior to filing litigation, and that the court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Gordon appealed from the order granting STYSA's motion to dismiss and STYSA cross appealed from the court's order denying STYSA's motion for attorney's fees.

DISCUSSION

In four issues, Gordon challenges the trial court's order granting STYSA's motion to dismiss. In his first issue, he argues that his lawsuit involves state law issues that are not the proper subject of an administrative proceeding; therefore, the doctrine of judicial nonintervention should not apply. In his second and third issues, Gordon claims that the trial court's decision violates his due process rights and is contrary to public policy. In his fourth issue, Gordon argues that the only evidence admitted of STYSA's organizational structure demonstrated that STYSA did not have an administrative process that was enforceable against Gordon. On cross appeal, STYSA challenges the trial court's denial of its motion for attorney's fees.

The Doctrine of Judicial Nonintervention

To provide context, we address the general nature of...