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).
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?