A.J. Samango, Jr. v. Squires Golf Club

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Anthony J. Samango, Jr., :
Appellant :
: No. 1059 C.D. 2021
v. : Submitted: August 12, 2022
:
Squires Golf Club :
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE DUMAS FILED: January 23, 2023
Anthony J. Samango, Jr. (Samango) appeals from the Court of
Common Pleas of Montgomery County’s (trial court) denial of his petition for a
preliminary injunction, entered August 10, 2021. Samango contends that the trial
court lacked reasonable grounds to deny him relief. After careful review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND1
Samango is a former member of Squires Golf Club (Squires).2 On June
11, 2021, following several incidents with other members, Squires notified Samango
that it would convene a disciplinary hearing to consider his expulsion, suspension,
or other sanction.3 Squires scheduled the hearing for June 15, 2021. On June 14,
1
Unless otherwise stated, we adopt the statement of facts from the trial court’s opinion,
which is supported by the record. See Trial Ct. Op., 11/3/21, at 1-4.
2
Squires is a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation. See Pennsylvania Nonprofit Corporation
Law of 1988 (Nonprofit Law), 15 Pa. C.S. §§ 5101-6146.
3
In early June, Samango tossed a glass of water on Frank Ventresca. See Notes of
Testimony (N.T.) Hr’g, 8/10/21, at 21-23. Shortly thereafter, Samango tossed the contents of a
bottle of water on Anthony Lepore. See id. at 22-23. An additional incident involving an “out of
town” member also occurred at this time. See id. at 78-79, 87-88.
2021, Samango declined the opportunity to attend the meeting, writing that he “did
not wish to take time away from your board meeting to present a defense for which
I have none.” Trial Ct. Op. at 1. Thereafter, following its scheduled hearing, Squires
expelled Samango from the club and promptly notified Samango of its decision.
On July 7, 2021, Samango filed a complaint in civil action against
Squires, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief including the reinstatement of his
membership. On July 8, 2021, Samango filed the instant petition for a preliminary
injunction, requesting his immediate reinstatement and, further, enjoining Squires
from interfering with Samango’s membership rights and privileges. According to
Samango, Squires did not grant him sufficient notice of his disciplinary hearing to
mount an appropriate defense, which rendered his termination void and ultra vires
as matter of law. See Pet. for Prelim. Inj., 7/8/21, at 9-14.4 Additionally, Samango
claimed that he had been treated in a discriminatory manner because his offenses
had been punished more severely than other members’ offenses. Id. Following a
hearing on August 10, 2021, the trial court denied Samango’s petition for a
preliminary injunction.5
4
Squires’ By-Laws provide for five days’ written notice of Board meetings. See
Complaint, Ex. A (Squires’ Am. & Restated By-Laws), § 8-3; see also 15 Pa. C.S. § 5703(b)
(requiring five days’ notice for special meetings).
5
At the hearing, Samango testified and characterized the water-tossing incidents as
“harmless pranks” and insisted that there was an “outside group that had some old grudges” which
had led to his expulsion from Squires, rather than his suspension or written warning. N.T. Hr’g,
8/10/21, at 26-30, 54-55. Samango further argued that other, more serious conduct from other
members had not resulted in expulsions. Id. at 65. Samango also presented testimony from Lenny
Feinberg, a Board member at Squires. Feinberg attended the disciplinary meeting, where a
“heated, unpleasant, difficult” discussion was held regarding Samango and his conduct. See id. at
107-13. Feinberg stated that there was “bad blood” between Samango and some of the Board
members, but also noted that Samango was “rude . . . unnecessarily so. He seemed to have a chip
on his shoulder . . . .” Id. at 113-14. The trial court made no express findings relevant to this
testimony. See generally Trial Ct. Op. Squires did not present testimony or evidence. N.T. Hr’g,
8/10/21, at 124.
2
Samango timely appealed, and the trial court issued an opinion. The
court concluded that Samango had waived any notice requirement after informing
the Board that he would not attend the disciplinary hearing. Trial Ct. Op. at 2.
Further, the court concluded that Samango’s allegations of harm were speculative
and that expulsion was not irreparable harm that could not be compensated with
damages. Id. at 3. Accordingly, Samango failed to show his entitlement to
injunctive relief. Id.
II. ISSUE
On appeal, Samango contends that there were no reasonable grounds
for the trial court to deny his preliminary injunction. In support of this contention,
Samango presents two arguments. First, Samango points to certain notice
requirements contained in Squires’ By-Laws and the Nonprofit Law, which
seemingly require a minimum five days’ notice for special meetings such as a
disciplinary proceeding. See Appellant’s Br. at 15-18. Because he was only
provided four days’ advance notice of his disciplinary hearing, Samango claims that
the Board decision was voidable as an ultra vires act. Id. Second, Samango
contends that he introduced uncontroverted evidence demonstrating his right to a
preliminary injunction. Id. at 19-22.
In response, Squires contends that Samango waived his notice
argument when he declined to attend the hearing and, further, expressly conceded
that he lacked a defense to the allegations. Appellees’ Br. at 10-12, 17-20.
Additionally, Squires maintains that Samango’s testimony is insufficient to establish
his right to a preliminary injunction. See id. at 16-24.
3
III. ANALYSIS6
“[A] preliminary injunction is intended to preserve the status quo and
prevent imminent and irreparable harm that might occur before the merits of the case
can be heard and determined.” Lindeman v. Borough of Meyersdale, 131 A.3d 145,
151 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). It is well settled that “[a] preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary remedy[.]” Hart v. O’Malley, 676 A.2d 222, 223 n.1 (Pa. 1996).
For a preliminary injunction to issue, a petitioner must establish six,
essential prerequisites. Summit Towne Ctr., Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc.,
828 A.2d 995, 1001 (Pa. 2003). The petitioner must demonstrate that (1) “an
injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be
adequately compensated by damages”; (2) “greater injury would result from refusing
an injunction than from granting it” and that “issuance of an injunction will not
substantially harm other interested parties in the proceedings”; (3) the injunction
“will properly restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the
alleged wrongful conduct”; (4) “the activity it seeks to restrain is actionable, that its
right to relief is clear, and that the wrong is manifest, or, in other words, must show
that it is likely to prevail on the merits”; (5) the injunction sought is “reasonably
suited to abate the offending activity”; and finally, (6) the injunction “will not
adversely affect the public interest.” See id. at 1001 (citations omitted).
Upon review, appellate courts do not inquire into the merits of the
controversy, but only “examine the record to determine if there were any apparently
reasonable grounds for the action of the court below.” Summit Towne Ctr., Inc., 828
6
We review a trial court order refusing or granting a preliminary injunction for an abuse
of discretion. Summit Towne Ctr., Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., 828 A.2d 995, 1000
(Pa. 2003) (citations omitted). Only where “it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree
or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the
decision of the [trial court].” Id.4
A.2d at 1000. Thus, if any of the six, essential prerequisites are not satisfied, the
trial court may deny relief. See id. at 1001.
A. Notice of the Disciplinary Hearing
Samango asserts that he did not receive adequate notice of his
disciplinary hearing, which rendered his expulsion void and ultra vires. See
Appellant’s Br. at 15. According to Samango, this fact alone entitles him to an
injunction. See Appellant’s Br. at 16-17.7
We disagree. Adequate notice of proceedings does not provide
independent grounds for an injunction. Case law is clear that there are six, essential
prerequisites that must be met for a trial court to grant injunctive relief; adequate
notice is not one of them. See Summit Towne Ctr., Inc., 828 A.2d at 1000-01.
Therefore, regardless of whether Squires’ notice to Samango of his disciplinary
7
In support, he cites In re Lord’s New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma, 817 A.2d 559(Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (Lord’s New Church), rev’d, 826 A.2d 863 (Pa. 2003), to argue that the five-
day notice requirement of the Nonprofit Law is mandatory. In Lord’s New Church, a church called
a special meeting on two days’ notice for the ostensible purpose of considering the removal and
replacement of directors with an agenda item described as “ICP funding.” Id. at 563. Instead, four
members of that group moved $1.5 million to a fund under their sole control; the special meeting
originally called for was never held due to a status quo order issued by the trial court. Id. On
appeal, this Court held that the meeting violated the five-day notice requirement of the Nonprofit
Law and that the meeting was ultra vires and void. Id. at 564. However, the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania subsequently reversed this Court’s holding in relevant part. See Lord’s New Church,
826 A.2d 863. Accordingly, this case is inapplicable.
The second case upon which Samango relies is also inapposite. In Quaker City Yacht Club
v. Williams, 429 A.2d 1204, 1206 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981), the issue was whether the member in
question had received notice of his suspension at all, where the by-laws required “reasonable
notice.” Id. at 1206. In that case, the member denied receiving notice and there were no records
to show that he had received notice. Id. Accordingly, we agreed with the trial court that the
member was not given reasonable notice in accordance with the by-laws. Id. In the instant case,
there is no question that Samango both received and responded to notice of the hearing.
Accordingly, Samango has not cited to any law upon which we may rely to support the
proposition that there is a black letter rule regarding the five-day notice period. See, e.g., Lord’s
New Church, 826 A.2d at 863; Quaker City Yacht Club, 429 A.2d at 1206.
5
hearing was adequate, Samango must still establish each of these six requirements
to secure preliminary injunctive relief. See id. at 1001.
B. Immediate and Irreparable Harm
Samango contends that he is entitled to injunctive relief because he has
established all six grounds required by law. Summit Towne Ctr., Inc., 828 A.2d at
1000-01. With regard to the first ground, immediate and irreparable harm, Samango
baldly concludes that the loss of his membership and access to a “one-of-a-kind golf
club” is irreparable, immediate, and incapable of compensation by money damages.
Appellant’s Br. at 19-20. He contends that Squires is where he “spent most days,
meals, visited with friends, played golf, did business, and hung out with his son.”
Id. at 14. Samango does not provide further characterization or description of his
visits, golf, or business conducted at the club. See generally Appellant’s Br. at 14-
20.
The trial court observed that “[b]eing expelled from a private social
club is not, generally, the kind of irreparable harm that this [c]ourt’s injunctive
powers should be used to address.” Trial Ct. Op., 11/3/21, at 4. The trial court
further noted that to the extent Samango could establish a wrong in any “legally
cognizable way,” he could seek an appropriate remedy, including money damages,
in his underlying action. Id.
We agree that on this record, Samango has failed to establish that he
will suffer immediate, irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by money
damages. See Summit Towne Ctr., Inc., 828 A.2d at 1000-01. At best, he will be
prevented from attending a private club during the pendency of this matter and can
continue to golf and socialize with his friends and family elsewhere; at worst, the
court or a jury will ultimately find in favor of Squires and he will be forever barred
6
from membership. Any potential loss of business as a result of his inability to attend
Squires is exactly within the realm of money damages that Samango should be able
to prove should this matter proceed to final hearing on the merits.
IV. CONCLUSION
A trial court has apparently reasonable grounds for denial of injunctive
relief where any of the six, essential prerequisites are not satisfied. Summit Towne
Ctr., Inc., 828 A.2d at 1000 (emphasis added). Here, Samango has failed to
demonstrate that, without injunctive relief, he will suffer irreparable harm that
cannot be compensated by money damages. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s
order denying injunctive relief.
LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
7
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Anthony J. Samango, Jr., :
Appellant :
: No. 1059 C.D. 2021
v. :
:
Squires Golf Club :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2023, the August 10, 2021 order
of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County is AFFIRMED.
LORI A. DUMAS, Judge