Team Kalamazoo, LLC v. Frontier Professional Baseball, Inc. et al

Filing 1

NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Kalamazoo Circuit Court case number 2011-0664-CK filed by William Lee, Frontier Professional Baseball, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - State Court Summons and Complaint) (Finnegan, Susan) Modified text on 2/1/2012 (bd).

Download PDF
SUI)8)ytoNS ANI3 C088PLAINT 'Pfsfntftfs nslnefs), Senfesf(es), BAQ t~ ~ AQ(8). ';TEAM KALAMAZ()0, I..L.C.,d.'b,'a THE K)(LikMAZOO '~CLS. 8 Michigan Lifnlted Liatniay Coolly, 3820 8 album Dnve, Ka(~oo, hfI 49008 ~s), ~es), snd ~ AQ(s). ,F)tofff(EII PIII)EESSIONAL )3ASH3ILLL, Ifr(C.. an !Iltituffs Corporadon, and ~LIAi@ I.EE purnsfrs attorney, nsr no, Brstrsss, snd telephnne nQ E(i annen. Ir. (826062), 8902 8. )uestnedge Ave., Slate 2, ,Porege. )II 49002. 269-383-0802 SUIII880NS, NOT)CETO THE DEFENOANT IA ihe flafA& Qf the peookl Qf the Sist& Qf M(chfg&A you Bf8 Aotffted; vou Bfe tl81Agsuert. 2 TOU HAVE 2) BATS Btt&i fecelVlng ttns SunlrAQAS to Sle 3 Wrftten BASW&r With the Court&Ad 8&iv& 3 Copy QA the Q(ABf pehy Qr take other lawful action with th& court (28 d &ye i(you were served by meit Qf you were served outsicle dtis stale) (MGR 2.111[cd 3 ff you do Aot answer or take other Bption within the cme allowed, Judgment may be entered Bgemst you for the retief demanded 1 ln llhe . con of&sit SUSQ I TAIS SUAlninns SSQSSS ': ~irLUL Cnuri ie 5Uinfivnls 15 inirsfiil Unless Selves On Of ilefoie 115 exDirsllOA Osis. Yhls QQQUfnent AYU f r& Sea%A Or we seal i rs:f S OQUft. i i w' i in i i i w * 5 ol the piaintfff. Actual Brfegarfons Bnef the Q(Brin rof'efref faust Ge stared On Bdd(oonstcornptWflr pag&S Bnd Br(ac)fed to ttffa forra. ny Farnhy Gwislon Cases The & fS,Q ofhef p&Adn g Of'&SO'Ved BCIIGA wlthlA JY&)unsdfctfonofthe Brnf(y division QfC fcuftCQUA IAVOtvlAgLA&family ol fafYflfy Pi&md&is of lhe padfes AP BCllo . wlttlln lne IuflsdlCtfQA Qf 'he,airtl!y olVfSlon Q ".h& Cf(Cuft Court 1AVQIVlng th& Bfrnfy Ql'BPU(y nlef„b&fs Qf thB Qaftl&S ABS 'CQ~SALUSY I)&&A previously TAB BCIfQA Ccurf 8 fed nl . fs AG fongef renlalAS pefldlPg. The dGCk&t. Au(Aber 3nd the Iultg& assigned tQ the action Bf8: Saf )Uege QOflet 1'ln *'ln General Civit Cases g, Tl)Bfe 1S AO Other A CIVll QBAdlAg Or!'&SOIV&d ClVll BCtlOA 3ftslAg OUt Of Ihe Sefli& 1 BASBCtioA Gf OCCufY&ACB Bs Bfiegeci fn the Comp)am(. BCtfon ti&tweefl fl'&SB p81:tes Or ottl&l'ark&a 3flsiAg Gut Of fih8 tl'BASBCtiQA Qf QCCUABACB BSBged IA!Ae CofY!pf&1At ABS been previously i,fed TEB in BCtlQP., f&fnefns is AQ Iong&i GQQket iio, .', 1 Q&AdlAg. Tt"8 dOCke't 'lUfYlbBf Court 3nd th& lunge BsslgP&d to 'tte BCtloA Bt&, jsnege p!since(8) reseenra,',AQUQS oty, fQvrnwin DefBAUSAf(81 resfnenne or village) C;iv onft Count) of'QI8138roo (iAQflsfe Qnr lQwfiship Qf Ltiage) Sauget, Iginois 8 ' .Plane where aonen Bose Ausness Qorxtucfea i City Qnd County of Ks)sfnasfto I 2/22.'20) I Sf~ Gate of s~fPI lf yoU requ tf& speci& f Bccom mod Btfo As to u58 the court because Gf 8 dts&bitity of lf you (Bguif 6 8 fo feign IBAgU age mtefpretBY to f18)p you fully participate m court proceedmgs. please contsct th& coutt)mmedistety to mBke BrrBngements. Mc et (3ros) SU88)f)CINE AND COINPLAINT MCR 2102(skt 1), MCR 2 194, 81CR 2 los, MCR 2 t(fr, MCR 21)3(CX2kak io), MCR 3208()fi) SU~NS ANQ ~ ~ PRQQF QF SERVICE pRQcEss sERYEfh you sre tc serve the sunvnons and complaint not ofexp~on the order for ~Adsummone Youmust~ and ftht your return TQ service you must return this original and as ~ to the court CQSIPLAINT !Case No. than with gt from tfte date of%ng Qr the thecourt~ If you date are unahfeto corn~ cform'. CERTIRCATEI AFFIDAVIT QF SFRVICEE NQNSE~E ~ QFFICERCERTIFfCATE cettffythat I I courter, (~n together tfy with r Oefefwfs it i ppf I'~ ~ ~ ~ Qf th8 sumtYtons anti colflpl8IAt, Qf cefttged matt (copy of I'8tufrt fecetpt d~ ~ et es Betngflfst rtat~& ss~ personally 8 se~ regis~ I ' g ~AQTQFPR~S~ duly', ststethsti am 8 Iegsitycompe~ aduttwho isnots~orsn~ofaco~~, and GR ah~, am asherfly. deputy ttstfff, appointed oradomey fora party (MCR2 f64/AK2D, and «rrrttt dte 8 copy of th8 summons pf aerator Oay, dale, I«we have pet'SQAaiif attafniptsd to Safva the SufnrAQAS arid lXtmptatnt, «cgethef wtth any attachfnente, and have ffeen unahie;Q cofnptete service. I ter«der«la decfafe that ihe staten ants strove are tl ue fc if 8 oest of nty I SeirrM fee 'i raeptete addreaati.'al df aervir ariie Miler Iravetedt S My cofrlttpssioA ,trtrteaqe 's se tt !s satire ttfpe pf ppptf ptttd if«arts«dary Qf ftfttchtgsn, County Qf ; t acknowledge that I 'ay e SIgnsture: exptfes: Stets the iottcvnAg defeltdaAti Scpeture f3ate Notary puttttc, Qft ifoffttatiot i, knowMge, apo tiettef. rdtat tee I SAd complaint, eftd cpwdrfarrt '~te add~eef pawe a~ed) I ACKNQytfLEGGIISENT GF SERVICE have received service of the summons snd compiaint, together with ASSES date Iree 8) COMPI AIbiT HOW COMES the above ~ed I Platnttff ts the owner of tn Defendant Ftontier Professional so played baseball in the City addtess is 3820 Stadium a. Plaindff and for its Complatnt states that: Professional baseball francbtse pentutted Baseball, Inc.'s professional baseball league, and Plaintiff of Kazoo, County of Kalamazoo Drtve, Katatnazoo, to plav baseball and State of Michtgan. Its Michigan 49008. Z. Defendant Frontier Professional Baseball, Inc. [hereinafter "Frontier" I is a ptofesstonal baseball league that bxtends tranchises to territories holders to play professional for the purpose of perrnitttng baseball in its league. Its address is 2041 its franchise ~se Lake Road„Suite 2A, Sauget, 1L 62'206. 3. Defiant 4. William ~ During the court of Plaintiff wished to sell its 2010 b~aII "Lee '[ is Commissioner of Defendant Frotuin. [hereinaf'ter and 201 I, Defendants were made aware of the fact franchise it had wtth Defendant Frontier. S. Knowing this to be the case, Defendant Lee referred a certain, Ron '"Heineman"] to Plainnff as a potential buyer [hereinafter 6. Plaintiff held a sertes of meeungs and through exchanges, ~ of Plaintiff's franchise. with Heineman, that process negotiated Heineman phone conferences to purchase with Heineman an agreement, and e-mad a majority interest in Plaintiff*s franchise. 7 Durmg the pmcess described in paragraph 6 above, Heineman tells Plaintiff that Defendant Lee vet'bally told him that he wouM. be approved by Defendant Frontier to purchase a tnalonty mterest ot'lamtil'f. g. Plauniff had untd September sold ot. tlot soM, and tvhefhet schedule and 9. agreed and tf't IS, g011 to tt was piayfng latled to meet satd deadline, A month or so before September Hememan in term submttted inform Defendam Frontier whethe~ it was a sclleduie N the Z01Z season ot not playtng a Plaintiff would lose its franchise. IS, 2011, Plattutff the agreement and Heineman, m the Defendant sign the pumhase Frcmtier for its approval. 10. A week or less prior to September 16. ZOII, for the first ttme, the Defendanr Frontier tells Piamttif and Hememan that there are "probiems*'ith and that Defendant Frontter had certain "problems" with Heineman, how the deal is structured be solved, but took no timely steps to work to resolve the 'problems", Frontier refused to 12. ~ Plamtiff ZOI of Defend~, ~ after the passage ot the September Frontier approved Heineman of the tort of itnentional interference are as follows: [a] the existence of a relationship or expectancy; tnfenttonat mtsconduct, with a business wouhl have 'ettainty conttttued the expecmcy or expectancy wtth busmess relationship [c] There Is(was a reasonable Platntlff 15, '%11 as a purchaser of a different team. of funtre economic benefit to Ptaindff; [b] Defendants a probability me deadhne became moor.. Michigan recogntzes and its elements result of the conduct the above recned events, the Defendant Is. of the September 15, 2011 deadline. I was not met, Plaintiff's franchise was taken Irom it, and the agreemetn with Heineman I3. After deadline, an extension As direct and proximate 15, September ~~t Plaintiff Defen~ and the had knowledge the Defendant's that absent reianonslnp of or reaItzed the expectancy; and [d] Damage to the Plaintiff. i5, In of said tort are met in the fogovving ways: the tnstant matter ag elements There was the between Piatnnft and Hetnetnan 'tstence ot a bustness teIattonshtp and there was a reasonably pt'obabtlttv ot" busutess expectancv ot a tun're econon'ttc benefit to Plaintiff, that being Plainoff would not lose be recoup ali or a ma]ority of the funds h paid to purchase the franchise b. The Defendants had fug knowledge of the business relationshtp and expectancy tM existed between Plaintiff and Heineman. c. There was a reasonable certatnp that absent the intentional misconduct of

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?