USA TRACK & FIELD, INC. v. LEACH et al

Filing 75

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Youth Executive Committee's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 10 ). Injunctive relief on the issue of reinstatement is premature. The parties are directed to meet with the Magistrate Judge following the administrative hearing to determine case management deadlines for the continuation of this litigation. (See order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/7/2016. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
USA TRACK & FIELD, INC.,
Plaintiff and
Counter-Defendant,
v.
LIONEL LEACH, RON MASCARENAS,
KENNETH FERGUSON, DOROTHY
DAWSON, LINDA ELLIS, LINDA PHELPS,
NORINE RICHARDSON, HENRY
MCCALLUM, DAVID REINHARDT, INEZ
FINCH, MARC JONES, MARY ELIZABETH
AUDE, and JACQUELINE WHITE,
Defendants and
Counter-Claimants.

)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:16-cv-01828-TWP-DML
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) by Defendants Lionel Leach, Ron Mascarenas, Kenneth
Ferguson, Dorothy Dawson, Linda Ellis, Linda Phelps, Norine Richardson, Henry McCallum,
David Reinhardt, Inez Finch, Marc Jones, Mary Elizabeth Aude, and Jacqueline White
(collectively the “Youth Executive Committee” or “Defendants”) (Filing No. 10). In May 2016,
the USA Track & Field Board of Directors voted to immediately suspend each of the Defendants
from their positions as members of the USA Track & Field, Inc. (“USATF”) Youth Executive
Committee. On June 3, 2016, Plaintiff USATF initiated this action by filing a Complaint in state
court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages against the Youth Executive
Committee, asserting claims for tortious interference with contract, conspiracy to interfere with a
business relationship, tortious interference with prospective business relationships, common law

conversion, criminal conversion, violation of Indiana’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and
declaratory judgment regarding the interpretation of USATF’s bylaws and regulations (Filing No.
1-1). On July 8, 2016, the Youth Executive Committee removed the action from state court to this
Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Thereafter, the Youth Executive Committee filed the instant Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and supporting brief. They seek a preliminary injunction for: (1) reinstatement to their
positions as members of the Youth Executive Committee; (2) reinstatement of their USATF
memberships and ability to serve as coaches, mentors, volunteers, officials, or local association
leaders; and (3) a defense and indemnification from USATF for USATF’s claims against the Youth
Executive Committee. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Youth Executive
Committee’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter
v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). Granting a preliminary
injunction is “an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case
clearly demanding it.” Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 389 (7th Cir. 1984)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). When a district court considers whether to issue a
preliminary injunction, the party seeking the injunctive relief must demonstrate that:
(1) it has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its claim; (2) no
adequate remedy at law exists; (3) it will suffer irreparable harm if preliminary
injunctive relief is denied; (4) the irreparable harm it will suffer without preliminary
injunctive relief outweighs the irreparable harm the nonmoving party will suffer if
the preliminary injunction is granted; and (5) the preliminary injunction will not
harm the public interest.
Platinum Home Mortg. Corp. v. Platinum Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 726 (7th Cir. 1998).
The greater the likelihood of success, the less harm the moving party needs to show to obtain an
2

injunction, and vice versa. Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of the United States
of America, Inc., 549 F.3d 1079, 1086 (7th Cir. 2008).
II.

BACKGROUND

USATF is based in Indianapolis, Indiana and is the recognized national governing body
and non-profit organization for “Athletics” (comprised of the sports of track and field, long
distance running, and race walking). USATF is subordinate to the United States Olympic
Committee (“USOC”). USATF selects, promotes, and oversees the USA Track and Field National
Team that competes at the Olympics and at other international competitions in Athletics events. It
helps develop future track and field athletes, promotes the sport of track and field, and establishes
and enforces the rules of Athletics. It encompasses the No. 1 high school and junior high school
participatory sport and more than 30 million adult runners in the United States. Led by President
Stephanie Hightower and CEO Max Siegel, USATF is a volunteer-driven, not-for-profit
organization with a staff of professional program administrators at the National Office in
Indianapolis. 1
The individual Defendants were each members of the USATF Youth Executive
Committee. The Youth Executive Committee is the executive committee of the USATF Youth
Division. It includes the Divisional Chair, the Divisional Vice Chair, the Vice Chair of Operations,
the Vice Chair for Administration/Treasurer, the Divisional Secretary, five Zonal Representatives,
the immediate past Divisional Chair, and one ex-officio member. Lionel Leach was the Divisional
Chair. On May 24, 2016, the USATF Board of Directors voted 11 to 1 to immediately suspend
each of the Defendants from their positions as members of the Youth Executive Committee.
(Filing No. 1-1 at 2.)

1

http://www.usatf.org/About.aspx. Last visited on November 4, 2016.

3

Each of the Defendants has participated in track and field in various capacities. Some began
their participation as athletes. Each has served their communities and the youth in their
communities as coaches, managers, administrators, trainers, officials, or mentors. They have made
serving their communities through sports participation a central part of their lives. Many of the
members of the Youth Executive Committee have made it their life mission to serve youth through
participation in track and field sports. Some of the Defendants have served for many years, some
more than thirty years, having a positive impact on the youth in their communities. Many of the
Defendants testified at the preliminary injunction hearing that the news of their suspensions and
the abrupt termination of their life mission has made them physically sick and has led to loss of
sleep.
USATF is comprised of fifty-nine local associations, each with its own officers, board, and
committees. The Defendants were not only members of the Youth Executive Committee but also
active within their local associations.
USATF’s Governance Handbook provides the rules, policies, and procedures for USATF.
The Governance Handbook also describes the roles of USATF’s Board of Directors (the “Board”)
and the National Office. USATF is governed by the Board, which establishes policies, oversees
all USATF committee programs, and selects a chief executive officer to lead the National Office.
The Board and National Office direct and oversee USATF’s programming. They are assisted by
five divisions and one group that are led by volunteers, including the Youth Athletics Division,
which is directed by the Youth Executive Committee.
USATF Bylaw Article 12-A-7 requires that any commercial agreement or contractual
obligation binding USATF must be signed by the USATF CEO or his designee, unless the Board
otherwise directs. USATF Bylaw Article 18-I requires USATF, through its CEO, to communicate

4

the contents of all contracts affecting sports committees with those committees during the
negotiation phase. USATF Bylaw Article 12-A-8 provides that the CEO shall be responsible for
managing all commercial aspects of USATF. Regulation 15-C-1 provides jurisdiction to the
various USATF committees to institute, conduct, and manage all championships within their
discipline and under their auspices.
USATF Bylaw Article 18-D states,
USATF shall indemnify any person who was or is a party or is threatened
to be made a party to any threatened, pending, or completed action, suit, or
proceeding, whether civil, administrative, or investigative, by reason of the fact that
he or she is or was a director, officer, employee, or official representative of USATF
against expenses, including attorney’s fees, judgments, fines, and amounts actually
and reasonably incurred by him or her in connection with the action, suit, or
proceeding. To qualify for indemnity, he or she must have acted in good faith and
in a manner he or she reasonably believed to be in, or not opposed to, USATF’s
best interests. . . . The termination of any action, suit, or proceeding by judgment,
order, settlement, conviction or upon a plea of nolo contendere or its equivalent,
shall not, of itself, create a presumption that the person did not act in good faith and
in a manner which he or she reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best
interests of USATF. . . . Any indemnification under this article shall be made by
USATF after the Board determines that the officer, director, employee, or official
representative has met the applicable standard of conduct. The Board shall make its
decision by a majority vote of a quorum consisting of members of the Board who
are not parties to the action, suit, or proceeding. If such a quorum is not obtainable,
the CEO shall make the decision, after consulting with independent legal counsel.
(Filing No. 9-7 at 27).
To operate a track and field meet, a meet organizer needs both timing software and event
registration software. The two software programs must be compatible to link registrations with
race results but particularly so for feeder events to national championships because an entrant’s
qualifications to register are determined by the race results of the timing software. Pertinent to
this case, timing software vendors include Hy-Tek and Meet Pro, and event registration software
vendors include Coach O, Direct Athletics, and Athletic.net. Through its CEO and national staff,
USATF seeks and develops contractual relationships with vendors, sponsors, and other partners.
5

In late 2015, Defendant Lionel Leach informed Renee Washington (“Ms. Washington”),
the Chief Operating Officer of USATF, that the Youth Executive Committee was going to switch
the timing system vendor for all youth track meets to Meet Pro even though that timing system
was not compatible with the event registration system that was being used, which was Coach O.
Most associations were using Coach O and Hy-Tek for their event registration and timing systems.
Mr. Leach explained to Ms. Washington that the Youth Executive Committee already had
extensively discussed this decision to make a change to the timing system and that he was in
negotiations with Direct Athletics to enter a contract for event registration for youth meets. Ms.
Washington informed Mr. Leach that the national staff already was in negotiations with a new
event registration system provider.
During this same time in late 2015, the National Office was completing due diligence
regarding event registration service providers. The National Office was in negotiations with an
event registration service provider, which would provide a lucrative sponsorship agreement for
USATF. When this potential sponsor learned that the Youth Executive Committee was going to
use Meet Pro for all youth meets, it immediately ceased negotiations with USATF because it was
not compatible with Meet Pro.
At the 2015 USATF annual meeting, Mr. Leach invited Meet Pro to present at the youth
workshop, and then he made a public announcement that Meet Pro would be the exclusive provider
of timing systems for youth meets. Mr. Leach’s announcement was made without the knowledge
of or input from the USATF National Office, the Board, or the Associations Committee, which
were directly impacted by the Youth Executive Committee’s decision and announcement. The
Associations Committee immediately complained to the National Office, including a complaint

6

that local associations would incur unnecessary, additional costs to purchase and become familiar
with Direct Athletics and Meet Pro.
In January 2016, USATF entered into a one-year contract with Athletic.net to provide
online track meet registration services for USATF’s 2016 youth championship events. Athletic.net
allowed local associations to use any timing system with the Athletic.net registration system.
Rather than use this new online registration system, the Youth Executive Committee challenged
the decision of the National Office and continued using a different registration system for some of
the youth track meets in January 2016. The Youth Executive Committee also encouraged local
associations to use other registration systems, not Athletic.net. The Youth Executive Committee
publicly criticized the Athletic.net online registration system and the National Office’s decision to
use the system. USATF viewed the actions of the Youth Executive Committee as potentially
causing a breach of its recent agreement with Athletic.net and compromising the integrity of
USATF and its operations.
The Youth Executive Committee canceled a number of youth qualifying meets in early
2016. Mr. Leach posted a video on YouTube, explaining that the meets were canceled because of
some online registration issues and potential participants would be automatically entered into the
national championships. USATF received complaints from parents of youth athletes regarding the
canceled meets.
On February 2, 2016, USATF filed an internal grievance against Mr. Leach, in which it
sought declaratory relief that the event registration process and vendor relationships should be
handled by the USATF National Office as a matter of its day-to-day affairs. (Filing No. 27-2 at
5–10.) USATF pointed to Bylaw Article 12-A-8 that provides the CEO with the responsibility to
manage all commercial aspects of USATF. When Mr. Leach later responded, he asserted that

7

Regulation 15-C-1 provides him with authority to institute, conduct, and manage all
championships within the Youth Executive Committee’s jurisdiction.
USATF’s National Office sent a notice to the local associations reminding them that
Athletic.net was USATF’s designated online registration system provider for 2016. The notice
also included instructions on how to set up the system. In response to this notice, the Youth
Executive Committee circulated a petition to members of USATF on April 19, 2016, to object to
USATF’s efforts to install Athletic.net as the exclusive registration provider for USATF. The
Youth Executive Committee’s petition explained that it believed the National Office was not
following USATF bylaws and regulations.
On May 2, 2016, the Youth Executive Committee passed a resolution that stated
Athletic.net was not being responsive to their needs and that USATF also was not being
responsive. Mr. Leach posted a second video on YouTube on May 17, 2016, explaining that the
National Office was not being responsive and was not following USATF rules and regulations,
that Athletic.net was not working properly, and that the local associations should use different
systems for their meets. USATF received complaints that the Youth Executive Committee’s
actions would reduce the number of registrations for youth meets, including the 2016 national
junior Olympics championships. Athletic.net also contacted USATF to complain about the
defamatory and harmful statements made against it and the potential breach of contract.
On May 24, 2016, one week after the second YouTube video was posted, the chairman of
USATF’s ethics committee sent a notice to each member of the Youth Executive Committee,
informing them that they were under investigation for ethics violations in connection with the
YouTube video and the petition. Also on May 24, 2016, USATF’s Board of Directors voted to
immediately suspend Mr. Leach and each of the members of the Youth Executive Committee. The

8

Defendants were not given a hearing or any other opportunity to present evidence or argument to
defend against their suspensions. The suspensions were publicly announced on May 25, 2016, on
USATF’s website.
On May 25, 2016, USATF’s general counsel, Norm Wain (“Mr. Wain”), sent a letter to
each of the Defendants, stating that they had been suspended from USATF and that they were not
to have any involvement with the organization in any capacity whatsoever. Mr. Wain’s letter
further explained that the Youth Executive Committee’s conduct surrounding the selection of a
vendor to provide registration services for the 2016 youth championship meets exceeded their
volunteer roles and authority and negatively impacted the viability of the events. Mr. Wain also
explained that the Youth Executive Committee was negatively impacting USATF’s ability to
fulfill its contractual obligations to its vendors and sponsors.
As a result of their suspensions, the Youth Executive Committee members are ineligible to
participate in USATF events as amateur athletes, coaches, managers, administrators, trainers, and
officials. Additionally, USATF will hold its annual meeting November 30 through December 4,
2016. The fifty-nine local associations had to declare their delegates for the annual meeting by
October 1, 2016. Delegates at the annual meeting will vote for USATF’s office holders, who will
hold their positions for the next four years. As a result of the suspensions, the Youth Executive
Committee members have been deprived of the opportunity to attend the 2016 annual meeting as
voting delegates and the opportunity to run for office.
In addition to the public announcement on USATF’s website and the letters sent to the
Defendants, Mr. Wain also sent a letter to the organizer of the 2017 Junior Olympics, notifying
him that Ken Ferguson, one of the Defendants, was suspended and could not have any involvement
whatsoever with the 2017 Junior Olympics unless and until further notice from USATF.

9

On May 26, 2016, the day after the public announcement of the Youth Executive
Committee’s suspensions, the Defendants filed a verified complaint with the USOC, requesting
that the USOC set aside their suspensions and that they be restored to their positions on the Youth
Executive Committee (the “USOC Proceeding”). The Defendants also asked the USOC to revoke
its recognition of USATF as the national governing body for Athletics. (Filing No. 9-8.)
On June 3, 2016, USATF filed an internal disciplinary complaint against all of the
Defendants, requesting that each member of the Youth Executive Committee have their
membership revoked and that they be permanently expelled from participating in any activities of
USATF as a member, volunteer, athlete, coach, or in any other capacity. (Filing No. 9-1.)
Also on June 3, 2016, USATF filed its state court Complaint against all of the Defendants,
alleging eight separate counts. On July 8, 2016, the Defendants removed USATF’s state court
case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. Then on July 15, 2016, the Defendants filed their
Motion for Preliminary Injunction in this Court.
On June 4, 2016, Mr. Leach responded to the February 2, 2016 internal grievance
complaint filed by USATF against him. On June 13, 2016, the USATF grievance panel, an
independent body of arbitrators, conducted a pre-hearing conference. By agreement of the parties,
the grievance panel ordered the February 2, 2016 grievance complaint against Mr. Leach and the
June 3, 2016 disciplinary complaint against the Youth Executive Committee to be consolidated
and decided together. The panel also set a hearing on the consolidated internal grievance and
disciplinary complaints for November 14, 2016. (Filing No. 27-2 at 39–41.)
After the administrative grievance hearing was set for November 14, 2016, USATF filed a
motion to dismiss with the USOC hearing panel on June 30, 2016, seeking to dismiss the Youth
Executive Committee’s separate USOC Proceeding. (Filing No. 33-1.) USATF asserted that the

10

USOC Proceeding should be dismissed because the members of the Youth Executive Committee
had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies through the internal grievance procedure and
because they failed to state claim upon which relief can be granted.
In a written decision issued on September 20, 2016, the USOC hearing panel granted
USATF’s motion to dismiss the USOC Proceeding, explaining “the Hearing Panel finds that [the
Youth Executive Committee] have not exhausted their administrative remedies, nor have they
shown by clear and convincing evidence that doing so would have resulted in unnecessary delay
or would have been futile because of prejudice to [the Youth Executive Committee].” (Filing No.
64-1 at 11.) The USOC hearing panel did not address the failure-to-state-a-claim argument
because of its dismissal on the basis of the failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Following the dismissal of the USOC Proceeding, the parties’ remaining proceedings are
(1) the administrative grievance procedure set for hearing on November 14, 2016, before a
grievance panel to consider the February 2, 2016 grievance complaint against Mr. Leach and the
June 3, 2016 disciplinary complaint against the Youth Executive Committee; and (2) the civil
action before this Court, wherein the Youth Executive Committee’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction is pending.

Both the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the administrative

grievance hearing involve the Youth Executive Committee’s request for reinstatement as members
of USATF and as members of the Youth Executive Committee.
III.

DISCUSSION

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the Youth Executive Committee must show that
it has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the claims, that no adequate remedy at
law exists, that it will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is denied, that the
irreparable harm it will suffer without preliminary injunctive relief outweighs the irreparable harm

11

USATF will suffer if the preliminary injunction is granted, and that the preliminary injunction will
not harm the public interest. Platinum Home Mortg. Corp., 149 F.3d at 726. The Youth Executive
Committee seeks a preliminary injunction for reinstatement to their positions as members of the
Youth Executive Committee and as members of USATF as well as for a defense and
indemnification from USATF for USATF’s claims against them.
A.

Reinstatement
The Youth Executive Committee asserts that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction

for reinstatement to their positions as members of the Youth Executive Committee and for
reinstatement of their USATF memberships and ability to serve as coaches, mentors, volunteers,
officials, or local association leaders. They provide a compelling argument that they have a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claim for reinstatement because USATF
failed to follow statutory and administrative law when it suspended the memberships of the Youth
Executive Committee without first providing any due process. The Board of Directors voted to
suspend the Defendants from their positions immediately, without notice and hearing contrary to
USATF bylaws. USATF also then revoked the decades-long memberships of all thirteen members
of the Youth Executive Committee, and banished the members from any involvement or
association with USATF in any way in the future. Defendants assert that USATF failed to comply
with its own rules, regulations, and bylaws. Thus, they argue, they have a reasonable likelihood
of success on the merits of their claim.
They next assert that they will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction because their
reputations will be harmed, they will miss the opportunity to vote and run for office at the USATF
annual meeting, and they will be deprived of participating in a sport that is a central part of their
lives. Many of the members of the Youth Executive Committee have made it their life mission to

12

serve youth in track and field sports. The Youth Executive Committee argues that these harms
cannot be remedied without a preliminary injunction, and traditional legal remedies will be
inadequate. Because of the abstract nature of the harms suffered, the Defendants explain that
monetary damages will not adequately remedy the harm, and whatever remedy is provided will
come too late if it is not provided preliminarily.
In balancing the harms and considering the public interest, the Youth Executive Committee
asserts that USATF will not suffer any harm by a preliminary injunction because it will result in
USATF receiving the benefit of additional volunteer service provided by the experienced members
of the Youth Executive Committee. That benefit to USATF is outweighed by the harm suffered
by the Defendants who are deprived of the opportunity to participate as mentors, coaches, and
trainers, and who cannot participate in the USATF annual meeting and election. They further
explain that the public interest is actually served by a preliminary injunction because it will allow
the members of the Youth Executive Committee to continue providing volunteer service work in
their communities to underserved youth as their coaches, trainers, and mentors. The need to find
replacement coaches and leaders in the local track associations will burden the public interest.
Responding in opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, USATF explains that
an injunction is not warranted because the Defendants are not reasonably likely to succeed on the
merits of their claim for reinstatement because USATF’s actions were consistent with and within
the bounds of its bylaws. USATF further asserts that the Court does not even have to reach the
merits argument because the Defendants have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and
courts do not interfere in the internal governance of voluntary membership associations like
USATF.

13

Concerning USATF’s argument that courts do not interfere in the internal governance of
voluntary membership associations, the Court notes that USATF is the party that initiated this civil
action by filing its Complaint. In that Complaint, USATF not only asserted tort claims but also a
claim for declaratory judgment regarding the interpretation of USATF’s bylaws and regulations
and the parties’ rights and authority under the bylaws and regulations. USATF put its internal
governance squarely at issue in this civil action by requesting declaratory relief. Thus, this
argument does not favor USATF’s position.
As noted above, both the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the administrative
grievance hearing involve the Youth Executive Committee’s request for reinstatement as members
of USATF and as members of the Youth Executive Committee. The administrative grievance
proceeding set for hearing on November 14, 2016, before a grievance panel will consider the
February 2, 2016 grievance complaint against Mr. Leach and the June 3, 2016 disciplinary
complaint against the Youth Executive Committee. An administrative decision favorable to the
Youth Executive Committee will resolve the reinstatement issues pending before this Court.
During the preliminary injunction hearing before the Court, counsel for the Youth
Executive Committee discussed various options for resolving the parties’ dispute. Included in his
discussion was the November 14, 2016 administrative hearing on the consolidated internal
grievance and disciplinary complaints. He explained, “the Court could order an expedited hearing.
I think a better result would be to leave the [administrative] hearing in place, but just to tell USATF
to follow the Act, to follow its own bylaws, and not expel -- excommunicate these people from the
sport until that hearing is held.” (Filing No. 61 at 23.)
Based on the faulty premise that neither USATF nor the Youth Executive Committee could
initiate the grievance process against each other because the Defendants were not members at the

14

time the grievance was filed, the Youth Executive Committee asserts that they should be reinstated
retroactively to the date their memberships were suspended. Then “they should be afforded all of
the opportunities available to them as though there was no penalty/suspension; and only then could
USATF initiate a grievance, which would be handled in accordance with the due process mandates
of the Act and bylaws.” The Youth Executive Committee then acknowledges that “[a]ny Court
involvement after those steps, then, would appropriately be limited to appeals from the grievance
process.” (Filing No. 73 at 6.) Thus, it appears that the Youth Executive Committee recognizes
the appropriateness of allowing administrative procedures to run their course before district courts
become involved in resolving parties’ disputes.
The evidence before the Court regarding the likelihood of success on the merits is strong.
However, USATF has presented a compelling argument that the proper course is to allow the
administrative process to run its course to a final decision.

To ultimately decide whether

Defendants are entitled to a preliminary injunction, the Court must assess not only their likelihood
of success on the merits, but also whether they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief, whether the balance of inequities tips in their favor, and whether issuing an
injunction in the public interest. See Grace School v. Burwell, 801 F.3d 788, 795 (7th Cir. 2015).
In light of the claims at issue in both the administrative grievance proceeding and in this civil
action, and also considering the procedural history and posture of both matters, the Court
concludes that a ruling on a preliminary injunction for reinstatement in this matter is premature.
Therefore, the Court denies the Youth Executive Committee’s request for a preliminary injunction
for reinstatement because the request is premature. However, the Court notes that dismissal for
failing to exhaust administrative remedies is not appropriate at this stage because it was USATF

15

that filed the Complaint for declaratory judgment regarding the interpretation of its bylaws and
regulations and the parties’ rights and authority under the bylaws and regulations.
B.

Defense and Indemnification
The Youth Executive Committee also argues that they are entitled to a preliminary

injunction for a defense and indemnification from USATF for USATF’s claims against them. The
Youth Executive Committee does not provide argument, analysis, or authority for each factor of
the test for a preliminary injunction. Rather, they briefly explain that they must be indemnified
because USATF improperly suspended them and then turned around and sued them personally,
causing them to incur legal fees and costs. They point to Kinney ex. rel. NLRB v. Int’l Union of
Operating Eng’rs Local 150, 994 F. 2d 1271, 1279 (7th Cir. 1993), for the proposition that “a
remedy of damages is inadequate if, among other things, it comes too late, if the plaintiff cannot
finance a lawsuit without revenues that will be lost absent an injunction, or if damages are difficult
to calculate.” The Youth Executive Committee argues that, without a preliminary injunction
providing indemnification, any remedy will come too late, and they likely will not be able to
finance this litigation to conclusion.
USATF responds that a preliminary injunction providing indemnification is inappropriate
because the Defendants failed to adequately support the claim with argument and authority, and
thus, it is waived. USATF further asserts that their claim for indemnification would fail on the
merits as a matter of law and under the bylaws of USATF. USATF explains that, even if the
Defendants succeeded on the merits, they are not without an adequate remedy at law because
“[i]ndemnification is, at its heart, money damages.” (Filing No. 29 at 30.)
Similar to the claim for a preliminary injunction for reinstatement, the Court concludes that
the proper course is to allow the administrative grievance proceeding to reach its conclusion in

16

light of its claims, procedural history, and posture. Therefore, the Court denies the Youth
Executive Committee’s request for a preliminary injunction for indemnification as being
premature.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Youth Executive Committee’s Motion
for Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 10). Injunctive relief on the issue of reinstatement is
premature.
The parties are directed to meet with the Magistrate Judge following the administrative
hearing to determine case management deadlines for the continuation of this litigation.

SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/7/2016
DISTRIBUTION:
R. Anthony Prather
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]

Christopher D. Lee
WOODEN & MCLAUGHLIN LLP
[e-mail]

Kara M. Kapke
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]

James McGinnis Boyers
WOODEN & MCLAUGHLIN LLP
[e-mail]

Adeyemi Adenrele
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]

Crystal Spivey Wildeman
WOODEN & MCLAUGHLIN LLP
[e-mail]

David R. Greifinger
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID R. GREIFINGER
[e-mail]

John Charles Babione, II
WOODEN & MCLAUGHLIN LLP
[e-mail]

17