DOROSHOW'S HORROR SHOW FINALLY CAME TO A HAPPY ENDING......( Legal report by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi ) 


James Doroshow joined a very exclusive private golf club in 2006, whereby he agreed to abide by the Club's by-laws, rules and regulations.
The club's by-laws authorise the rules committee to " investigate written complaints concerning the conduct of any member , and to take action thereon, and to report to the board of directors its findings and recommendations as to disciplinary action ". If a member disagrees with the committee's decision to impose a sanction , the member has the right to appeal the matter to the board of directors. In such cases , the club's by laws require the board to conduct " a full hearing de novo to all relevant matters " after providing at least 10 days written notice to the member. 
Grounds for expulsion include " a material violation of the by-laws , house rules and policies of the club " or " any conduct which is detrimental to the welfare , interest , character or reputation of the club ". The ultimate catch all statement , by all accounts ! 
Doroshow was alleged to have committed 3 rule violations prior to an incident in July, which involved him having an altercation with another member on the golf course. This heated exchange of words resurfaced a few hours later in the club house bar,  where Doroshow was dining with his guests. In this instance , he was certainly the victim , being subjected to a torrent of abuse which provoked a response of pinning his aggressor up against a wall. Not surprising a written complaint came in concerning the alleged physical assault. 
Initially, each party received a 90 day suspension for the incident , but then the defendants took a secret vote as to whether or not the plaintiff should be expelled from the club. At this stage common sense prevailed, and the conspirators were thwarted by the lack of sufficient paper record to obtain the desired outcome. But these conspirators were not to be denied as they quickly seized upon a written complaint about Doroshow's conduct six months later , following another incident on the golf course. 
The plaintiff was alleged to have hit a ball in the direction of another player intentionally ,   thereby endangering his personal safety. Yet , despite the fact that witness statements claimed that Doroshow simply made an errant shot , which caused his ball to fly off the 4th fairway and cross over onto the fifth , where the complainant was playing. On receiving a copy of the complaint letter , the plaintiff was told the hearing would only concern the latest incident , but the rules committee also questioned him over another alleged violation regarding the use of cell phones.
Doroshow tried to explain that because of the untimely death of his wife , the club's general manager had given him permission to use in cell phone in emergencies to speak to his children. The conspirators were clearly not of a mind to have to show mercy over this matter.
After this meeting , which resulted in the plaintiff receiving another suspension to last 120 days , the rules committee then decided to recommend to the board his expulsion from the club. A scheduled hearing took place and the expulsion was approved by an 11-0 vote , with one abstention. This was a horror show which surely beggared belief.
But when Doroshow decided to sue the club , the trial judge seemed only concerned with two issues : (i) whether the procedure followed by the association was fair , and (ii) whether the expulsion rested upon a rule which was substantially capricious or contrary to natural justice. Unbelievably he found in favour of the club , concluding that " the process does not have to be perfect : it has to be fair and that this court finds that it was ". Moreover , he believed " the court was not required to evaluate the merits of a member's expulsion " , which to my way of thinking would provide clubs with the absolute power and freedom to expel members on any whimsical pretext , so long as they correctly follow laid down procedures.
Well, thankfully on appeal the  State Supreme Court shared my concerns and took a different view of the matter. First off , the judges felt that Doroshow's legal rights and protections had been overlooked and denied during the disciplinary process. But more importantly , they took the view that the disciplinary process was in error, which raised serious questions with regards to its impartiality. " It was the duty of this court , and any other court,  to determine whether the association acted within its powers in good faith , in accordance with its laws , and the law of the land ". Indeed , there are  two fundamental requirements of good faith : (i) decisions need to be substantively rational , and (ii) disciplinary procedures are not conducted in a climate full of prejudice and animosity. 
Doroshow was without doubt the victim of deferential treatment , which demonstrated the club's lack of good faith . It seemed the club adopted a callous, dismissive attitude towards the plaintiff in respects of the reasonable explanations he offered , when defending the last two allegations of misconduct. Clearly , there were certain individuals out to get him, utterly hell bent on seeing him expelled from the club. Nothing demonstrated their prejudice and bias against him than the fact that Doroshow had initially paid the club $100,000 for a " full equity membership ", only to receive 10% of that money on expulsion , following the club's decision to sell his membership at a reduced price. Somebody I guess really benefited from that but it wasn't the plaintiff.
Not surprisingly , the appeal court judges had no hesitation in reversing the trial court's judgement , awarding Doroshow damages along side a full entitlement to all his costs. Now that's what I call justice... and a happy ending to a rather disturbing story.