You are on page 1of 21

CAUSE NO.

11-06967-B BOB GREENE, AND BOB GREENE A/N/F SAXON GREENE Plaintiffs,
v.

TEXAS AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION, Defendants.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

44 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS' SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiffs Bob Greene and Bob Greene, as Next Friend for Saxon Greene, a minor, ("Greene" or "Plaintiffs") hereby file this Sixth Amended Petition against Defendant Texas Amateur Hockey Association ("TAHA" or "Defendant"), and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1.

Due to the nature of the claims at issue in this case, discovery should be

conducted pursuant to a Level 3 discovery control plan in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4. H.
PARTIES
2.

Greene is an individual residing in Tarrant County, Texas.

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 1

3.

TAHA is a Texas nonprofit corporation that uses monies collected from amateur

hockey player fees, and is supposed to promote amateur hockey in Texas and Oklahoma. TAHA conducts the majority of its business in Dallas, Texas. TAHA has already made its appearance herein.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.

This Court has jurisdiction over this suit because the amount in controversy

exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties because Plaintiffs are residents of Texas, Defendant TAHA is a Texas entity, and all parties have made general appearances. 5. Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and

Remedies Code Sections 65.023(a),15.002(a)(l).


IV. BACKGROUND FACTS

6.

Saxon Greene plays amateur hockey as a member of the Ice Jets. Ice Jets is an

association of amateur hockey teams which compete in USA Hockey. Ice Jets compete in USA Hockey through USA Hockey's regional affiliate for Texas and Oklahoma, Texas Amateur Hockey Association ("TAHA"). To play for Ice Jets, Saxon was required to join USAH, and in so doing also became a member of its Texas affiliates TAHA. When he and Mr. Greene paid the required membership fee, a portion of this was allocated to TAHA. When Saxon joined TAHA through USAH, TAHA made available through its website to him and Mr. Greene various forms and informational material. Included in these forms and informational material were the TAHA rules and bylaws, which govern the actions and set forth the responsibilities of players,

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 2

associations and TAHA.

Since that time, Saxon and Mr. Greene have abided by the TAHA

rules, and anticipated that TAHA would abide by its rules and bylaws. 7. Within USA Hockey, there are various leagues which denote various skill levels.

Of these various leagues, the Tier I program is the highest and most competitive. Ice Jets has had youth hockey teams for the past
10

years, experiencing national success in the past with its

Tier I program. In fact, Ice Jets are the only TAHA and the First Rocky Mountain District association to ever win a Tier I National Championship. In addition Ice Jets are the first and only association in Texas to have a player drafted in the first round of the NHL draft Stefan

Noesen. Ice Jets were able to obtain this success by offering the most advanced hockey training available in Texas and Oklahoma. Greene's minor son played travel hockey with the Ice Jets the last two seasons, as well as five of the previous six seasons before that, and wishes to play with the Ice Jets for the 2012-2013 season. 8. As Saxon Greene's parent, Mr. Greene invested considerable time, effort, energy,

and money in his due diligence process of selecting the best hockey program available in this area to provide the best opportunities for his son to develop a complete set of hockey skills. As a result of his prudence and expense, Mr. Greene determined that Ice Jets provided a superior program and the best opportunity for his minor son, Saxon Greene. TARA's arbitrary, capricious and wrongful action as described below have deprived Plaintiffs of the value, of the effort and expense and benefits. 9. To be eligible to participate in Tier I, an association must be a member of USA
36

Hockey. USA Hockey is recognized by Congress, through the Amateur Sports Act. 220501,
et seq,

U.S.C.

as the National Governing Body of amateur hockey in the United States.

USA Hockey has granted TAHA the authority to govern and regulate amateur hockey in Texas

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 3

and Oklahoma. To execute its duties, TAHA was formed as a not-for-profit entity, and is run by a Board of Directors. This Board of Directors is comprised of various members of the hockey community, some of whom have or had at material times, based on information and belief, a direct pecuniary interest in decisions made by TAHA. In addition to the Board,TAHA is subject to the voting rights of its members. As currently written, the membership votes are allocated based on the number of players skating for an association or out of a given rink. For the TAHA membership, that means that Keith Andresen, the operations/programs manager of the Stars Centers franchise of ice rinks (and his employer), and/or any other such Stars Center employee on the TAHA Board holds (or held at the material times) the ability to control the majority interest in all TAHA votes. Mr. Andresen has (or had at material times) the ability to control all TAHA votes, including nominations to the Board. Mr. Andresen also, based on information and belief, has directly and/or through his employer a pecuniary interest in TARA's decisions. Over the last several years, TAHA has passed resolutions and decisions strengthening the Stars Center's control over TAHA, and augmenting the benefits Star Centers receive. 10. When TAHA became the Texas and Oklahoma affiliate of USA Hockey, it

enacted rules and bylaws for its organization. Ice Jets paid TAHA and/or through USA Hockey for the right to participate in those organizations,under the rules those organizations had enacted. Players were then invited directly and/or through their parents (as Plaintiff and Plaintiffs son were), and those that joined (as Plaintiff and Plaintiffs son did) paid USA Hockey and TAHA for the right to participate in those organizations under the rules those organizations had enacted. 11. Many of the rules enacted by USA Hockey and TAHA govern the approval of
&

Tier I teams. Under the USA Hockey Rules league's Tier I Board of Governors.

Regulations, teams must be certified by its

To be certified, the team must have "sophisticated"

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 4

ownership, pay a membership fee, have a financial guarantee that covers the costs typically incurred in a season, and be insured under USA Hockey's insurance program. As the Texas and Oklahoma affiliate of USA Hockey, TAHA has instituted additional requirements for obtaining Tier I status. 12. Under TAHA rules, obtaining Tier I status is a two-step process. First, the

association must be eligible to receive Tier I status. To be eligible, an association was required to submit a Tier I application that complied with minimum requirements set forth in F(3). Second, the association must have been approved by the Tier I Committee and TAHA Executive Committee. An association's failure to complete the first step precludes completion of the

second step. If an association completes both steps, it has Tier I status, and is eligible to field a Tier I team. 13. I Committee. On or before April I, 2011, Ice Jets submitted a Tier I application to TAHA's Tier Three other hockey associations also submitted applications for Tier I status.

While Ice Jets' application fully complied with TAHA rules, applications of other associations including that of Alliance, did not. Despite the other associations' failure to provide proper applications,TAHA considered their applications, violating the two-step process. 14. On or about April 15, 2011, the Tier I Committee notified Ice Jets that its

application had been denied. The Tier I Committee's denial letter, which was not sent by TAHA to Plaintiffs, stated that Ice Jets' application was denied due to the alleged need to reduce the number of teams playing Tier I hockey in Texas and Oklahoma. (This was not a criterion listed for Tier I eligibility as states in the Tier I Rules). Ice Jets appealed this decision, following the administrative procedure required by the USA Hockey Annual guide.

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 5

15.

On or about April 8, 2011, after applications for Tier I were submitted, TAHA

President allegedly distributed a written version of new Tier I Rules. These new rules contained a date of April 15, 2011, but apparently were never voted on, approved, or formally enacted by the Tier I Committee or Board. 16. Ice Jets' appeal resulted in a hearing on or about May 17,2011. The hearing was

conducted by a TAHA appointed Hearing Committee. Plaintiffs were not provided with notice of this hearing despite request for same. The Hearing Committee heard testimony concerning the Tier I Committee's violations of the TAHA rules. The testimony included discussion of Tier I Committee member's conflicts of interest, the persons required to be on the Tier I Committee, and the decision the Tier I Committee was to make. The duration of the hearing and the

testimony allowed, however, were arbitrarily and unfairly limited. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were denied the right to participate as a party, to present evidence or testify. 17. On or about May 20, 2011, the Hearing Committee found the Tier I Committee

had violated TAHA rules by failing to include the proper Committee members in the initial decision. Therefore, the Hearing Committee reversed and remanded the Tier I Committee's

original decision. 18. On May 26, 2011, a Tier I Committee that complied with the Hearing

Committee's requirements met to reconsider all applications. 19. On or about May 30, 2011, the Tier I Committee voted to allow all Tier I

applicants, including Ice Jets, to compete in the Tier I league for the 2011-2012 season. Later that same day, however, the Tier I Chairperson, Mark Servaes, informed the Tier I Committee that the TAHA Board had allegedly disapproved the second decision, the only one done by the fully constituted Tier I Committee, and would hold an additional hearing to make TARA's final

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 6

decision regarding the applications for Tier I status. TAHA claims that it failed to make or keep any written records of this important Board vote.
20.

On or about May 31, 2011 the TAHA Board conducted a hearing in which all four

applying associations were present and permitted to discuss their Tier I applications. Plaintiffs were not provided notice of such hearing. Furthermore, the duration of the hearing and the testimony allowed were arbitrarily and unfairly limited. Again, Plaintifis were denied the right to participate as a party, to present evidence or testify.
21. 15\

In a letter dated the same day, but not delivered until late in the evening on June

the TAHA Board informed Ice Jets that its application had once again been denied. (Again,

TAHA claims that it failed to make or keep any written record of this important Board vote). The Board's only reason for denying the Ice Jets Tier I status was a desire to reduce the number of Tier I teams, a criterion not listed in the Tier I rules or Tier I eligibility. The Board's decision violated various TAHA rules, including that the acceptance or denial was not made by the TAHA Executive Committee as required by the version of Tier I rules legitimately in effect on April l ,2011.
22.

The TAHA Board arbitrarily and capriciously violated the two-step process. The

TAHA Board violated this process by granting Tier I status to teams that did not meet the qualifications required under the TAHA by-laws. Under the Tier I rules, Ice Jets submitted a valid Tier I application. If the TAHA Board followed its rules, other associations, including Alliances should not have been granted Tier I status. The fact that any other outcome occurred demonstrates the arbitrary and capricious nature of the TAHA Board's decision. Furthermore, because the teams granted Tier I status did not meet the mandatory requirements of the TAHA

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 7

by-laws, TAHA had breached its agreement to provide Tier I teams of a specific quality. There are additional reasons that the TAHA Board's actions are arbitrary and capricious. 23. The TAHA Board based its decision on irrelevant factors. The Tier I application

process is only a process for approving or denying Tier I status, not determining the number of Tier I teams. The Tier I rules governing the Tier I application process allow the Tier I The Board, however,

Committee to recognize an infinite number of Tier I associations.

purportedly justified its decision about applications on a concern for the number of Tier I teams, an issue not properly before the Board. Therefore, a limitation on the number of teams is not a relevant part of the approval or denial of a Tier I application. Moreover, the Board's process also lacked integrity. 24. The Board permitted parties with conflicts of interest to vote on the applications.

Various members of the Board that participated in the May 31st decision had apparent conflicts of interest. Both Mr. Servaes and Mr. Appell had children who played for applicants. Based on information and belief, there are likely other members who voted and had personal financial interest in the outcome of the vote, specifically including Mr. Anderson who voted in favor of the Alliance's application for Tier I status when Alliance paid Andresen's employer hundreds of thousands of dollars to skate at its facility and against the application of Ice jets who did not pay to use such facility. The Board's decision also violated the TAHA rules at a more fundamental level. 25. The Board's decision violated the stated purpose of the Tier I rules. The Tier I
local

rules state that their purpose is "to promote

competition among Tier I Organizations and


in Texas and Oklahoma."

teams in order to achieve high quality, cost effective play

(TAHA

Tier I Rule H.)(emphasis added). The Board's May 31, 2011 ruling, however, denied Ice Jets

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 8

application due to concern for competition at "District and National Tournaments." Ironically, the effect of TAHA's at least two (arbitrary) capricious and improper decision caused at least two Tier I states players to move to associations in Colorado. 26. The Board failed to apply and follow the correct Tier I rules, and improperly

enacted and applied the wrong Tier I rules, which resulted in an arbitrary and capricious result to Plaintiffs' detriment. Specifically, the Tier I rules that were in effect when the Tier I applications were submitted on April 1, 2011, required votes like that which occurred on May 31, 2011, to be done by the "Executive Board", not the full Board of Directors. TAHA violated this rule rendering the May 31, 2011 vote invalid and a nullity, particularly considering that such votes allowed Board Members with conflicts of interest to participate. 27. The Board's misapplication of the rules, misinterpretation of the rules, exposure

to conflicts of interest, failure to uphold the purpose of its rules, and admittance of unqualified associations demonstrate the arbitrary, capricious and fraudulent nature of TAHA's decision. Due to the arbitrary, capricious and fraudulent nature of TAHA's actions and decisions, Ice Jets appealed the May 31 decision to USA Hockey and/or to arbitration. Unfortunately, that appeal did not protect Plaintiffs from the harm caused by TAHA's decision. Plaintiffs' harm derives from TAHA's breach of contract, and existed once the contract was breached. This initial harm has been exacerbated by TAHA's refusal to independently rectify its improper behavior. The longer TAHA is permitted to operate in breach of its by-laws, the greater Plaintiffs harm will be exacerbated. 28. Defendant TAHA has wrongfully asserted its alleged authority to terminate,

suspend, disqualify and/or take legal action against any person participating in or "aiding" in this legal action, which has included testifying as a witness or otherwise in this case. Such assertion

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 9

has created a climate of fear and intimidation among parents of Ice Jets players or potential players and others who may have knowledge of facts relevant to this case; such that potential witnesses are unwilling to come forward for fear of retaliation and/or discrimination by TAHA.

v. STANDING

29.

Plaintiffs do not bring this action to seek redress or damages for Ice Jets.

Plaintiffs bring this action for their own damage and other legal relief due to violations of legal duties and owed to Plaintiffs, Defendant's breach of contract with Plaintiffs, misrepresentation and fraudulent conduct towards Plaintiffs, and deceptive acts. Plaintiffs have legal standing to bring this suit against Defendant TAHA. Specifically, Plaintiffs paid fees to Defendant TAHA in order to participate with the Ice Jets as a player and player's parent. As such, Plaintiffs became "members" of TAHA under its By-Laws. As members of TAHA, Plaintiffs expected and were entitled to the benefits of membership, including the promise and expectation that TAHA would allow eligible associations, like Ice Jets, to field Tier I teams, and allow players like Plaintiff Saxon Greene, to skate and try out for Tier I, move up to Tier I, practice with Tier I players, and to receive Tier I level coaching and development with the Ice Jets, his chosen association. As members of TAHA, Plaintiffs were entitled to and Defendant TAHA was contractually and legally obligated to them such that TAHA would not act arbitrarily and capriciously, would not violate its own by-laws and rules or those of USA Hockey, including the conflict of interest policy.

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 10

As members of TAHA, Plaintiffs contracted directly with TAHA; were consumers under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices; were legally entitled not to be defrauded by Defendant TAHA; were owed a legal duty not to be given misrepresentations, intentional or negligent by Defendant TAHA; and were damaged by Defendant TAHA's anti-competitive actions.
VI. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

30. 31.

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment regarding a provision of TAHA's Bylaws. TAHA's Rules and Bylaws purportedly contain provisions permitting TAHA to

suspend or terminate the membership of any member bringing or "aiding" in any suit against TAHA. Article 14, Section 2 of TAHA's Bylaws specifically provide that "any action in

resorting to a Court" by a Member is "grounds for the suspension of any Member's membership". Section 1O(A(6)) of USAH's Bylaws provides that if a Member "participates" or "aids" a Member outside of Arbitration may be "suspended and/or disqualified from membership by TAHA.

32.

Greene submits that this provision is against public policy and tantamount to

witness intimidation, suppression of evidence, and obstruction of justice. 33. Unless the court strikes this language as contrary to public policy, TAHA

members like Plaintiffs, who was refused the opportunity to participate in the administrative appeal process by Defendant TAHA, will continue to refrain from seeking legal redress or coming forth with testimony or other evidence against TAHA for fear of retaliation. This type of draconian impediment to legal recourse should not be tolerated.

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 1 1

34.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Article 14, Section 2

of TAHA's Bylaws and TAHA's application and/or its enforcement of Section 1O(A)(6) of the related USA Hockey Annual Guide are void as against public policy and unenforceable. 35. Alternatively, Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment that such provisions are

void and unenforceable by TAHA to the extent that "aiding" litigation may be interpreted to apply to witnesses who seek only to offer relevant testimony and speak the truth under oath in disputes with TAHA. Otherwise, the integrity of the legal process and this Court's jurisdiction may be tainted. 36. rules. 37. The Parties contest whether TAHA properly followed its rules relating to Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment with regard to TAHA's duties under its

approving associations for Tier I status. 38. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment of the actions TAHA's Tier I rules require

TAHA to take when considering a Tier I application for approval. 39. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment regarding the ability of players to

break their contractual agreements in order to join Ice Jets. 40. Plaintiffs assert that until TAHA's decision to exclude Ice Jets from Tier I status

is overturned, players should not be penalized for choosing to join Ice Jets. 41. To prevent such penalties, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that if Ice Jets

Tier I status is reinstated, players will have the opportunity to join an Ice Jets Tier I team, and any TAHA or USA Hockey rule or by-law to the contrary that may be enforced by TAHA will be unenforceable by TAHA against those players.

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 1 2

VII. VIOLATIONS OF TEXAS FREE ENTERPRISE AND ANTITRUST ACT

42.

TAHA provides amateur hockey players the opportunity to participate

competitive hockey.

In the Texas and Oklahoma regions, TAHA is the only provider of

competitive youth hockey. It remains the sole provider of competitive youth hockey due to its relationship with USA Hockey. 43. When TAHA denies an association's application to participate in Tier I hockey, it

has denied that association's right to participate in the highest level of youth hockey available in Texas and Oklahoma. The association has no alternative avenue of competition, short of

traveling outside the state at a significant additional cost, and could not develop an alternative if it wanted. TAHA's ability to exclude an association from a market controlled by a single entity, by artificially limiting choices of Tier I programs and steering players into programs unvetted by any serious certification and qualification proceeded by any measure, is anti-competitive and monopolistic. This anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior has awarded Tier I certification to particular groups, unqualified associations even by TAHA's own untested and dubious certification process and standards, and has unfairly and unjustly impaired Saxon Green's opportunity to skate at the Tier I level for the Ice Jets and/or to receive Tier I level coaching development and opportunity, including to practice with Tier I quality players. As a result

TAHA's wrongful actions much if not all of what has been accomplished is to the advantage and gain of those with conflicts of interest and unjust contemplation of profits and financial gain at the expense of youth hockey development and lost opportunity cost of the player's parents.

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 13

VIII. BREACH OF CONTRACT

44.

Plaintiffs paid fees to TAHA in consideration of TARA's agreement to comply

with its by-laws and rules and those of USA Hockey, including its conflict of interest policy. Thus, a contract existed between Plaintiffs and Defendant TAHA. TAHA's actions related to denial of Tier I status for the 2011-2012 season resulted in a breach of TAHA's by-laws and rules. TAHA's breach of its by-laws and rules was also a breach of an agreement with Bob Greene. Additionally, when Bob Greene joined TAHA, TAHA offered to provide the Bob

opportunity to play competitive hockey for associations that met certain qualifications.

Greene accepted that offer, and agreed to abide by TAHA's by-laws and rules for the right to take advantage of the opportunity for his minor son Saxon to play hockey for associations of the quality TAHA agreed to provide. When TAHA failed to fulfill its duty of providing hockey teams that met certain qualifications, TAHA breached its by-laws, rules and its agreement with Bob Greene. When TAHA made the decision to accept fully the responsibility of choosing

which associations were to rightfully have the Tier I certification,by enacting rules pertaining to the certification and granting of Tier I association acceptance, parents were effectively removed from the process and TAHA essentially accepted the responsibility and obligation to use good prudence and due diligence through ha fair vetting process. 45. TAHA's breach of Bob Greene's contractual rights caused injury to Bob Greene.

Bob Greene was injured by losing the benefit of the bargain he had entered with TAHA. This injury resulted in damages of at least $50, 000. In the event the Comi finds Mr. Greene is not entitled to monetary damages, Plaintiffs plead, in the alternative, that TAHA be required to specifically perform its duty to provide Tier I teams of the quality guaranteed under its by-laws

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 1 4

and rules; or declare the Tier I certification process unenforceable as practiced and allow the market to determine same as was the case before the enactment of Tier I rules. 46. In addition to being a breach of Bob Greene's contractual rights, TARA's breach

of its by-laws and rules was arbitrary, capricious, and fraudulent. Such an action necessitates court intervention. 47. Bob Greene also brings this lawsuit on behalf of his minor child, Saxon Greene. By

Saxon is a third-party beneficiary to the agreement between Bob Greene and TAHA.

entering that agreement, Bob Greene and TAHA intended to secure a benefit to Saxon Greene, namely, the opportunity to play hockey in a competitive league in Texas for teams of a particular quality. Additionally, Bob Greene and TAHA entered into the agreement directly for Saxon's benefit. 48. Bob Greene substantially performed his contractual obligations under the

agreement, namely by adhering to the rules and regulations of TAHA and paying for his membership. TARA's failure to follow its by-laws and rules with regard to granting Tier I status, caused a substantial breach of the agreement, thereby relieving Bob Greene and Saxon Greene from any further obligation to perform under or comply with the agreement, including the by-laws and rules alleged to be applicable by TAHA. This breach caused injury to Saxon Greene by depriving him of the opportunity to play hockey for a Tier I team of the quality promised by TAHA. This loss cannot be adequately compensated with monetary damages.

Therefore, Plaintiffs pray that TAHA be required to specifically perform its duty to provide Tier I teams of the quality guaranteed under its by-laws and rules. 49. TAHA also breached an agreement with Ice Jets. Much like Bob Greene, Ice Jets

entered an agreement when it joined TAHA. This agreement also bound TAHA and Ice Jets to

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page IS

adhere to the TAHA by-laws and rules. When TAHA breached its by-laws and rules, it breached its agreement with Ice Jets. Plaintiffs do not seek to assert Ice Jets rights, but do seek to assert their rights as third party beneficiaries to this agreement. 50. By entering into the agreement,TAHA and Ice Jets intended to secure a benefit to

the parents and players of the Ice Jets,namely,the ability of parents and players to participate in TAHA through Ice Jets. As such, the Ice Jets parents and players are third party beneficiaries to the agreement between TAHA and Ice Jets. Therefore, Bob Greene and Saxon Greene are third party beneficiaries to the agreement between TAHA and Ice Jets. 51. Ice Jets substantially performed its contractual obligations under the agreement,

namely by adhering to the rules and regulations of TAHA and paying for its membership. TAHA's failure to follow its by-laws and rules with regard to granting Tier I status, caused a substantial breach of the agreement, thereby relieving Ice Jets,Bob Greene, and Saxon Greene of any further obligation to perform pursuant to the agreement. 52. Bob Greene and Saxon Greene were injured when TAHA breached its agreement

with Ice Jets. Bob Greene and Saxon Greene were injured by the lost opportunity to play hockey for a team of the quality guaranteed by the TAHA by-laws and rules. The injury resulted in damages of at least $50, 000. In the event the Court finds Plaintiffs are not entitled to monetary damages, Plaintiffs plead, in the alternative, that TAHA be required to specifically perform its duty to provide Tier I teams of the quality guaranteed under its by-laws and rules.
IX. FRAUD

53.

TAHA represented to Saxon and Mr. Greene that TAHA would conduct its

operations in accordance with the TAHA and USA Hockey by-laws and rules.

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 16

54.

Knowing that TARA's conduct would be subject to these by-laws and rules was

an important consideration for Saxon and Mr. Greene in deciding whether to join TAHA. 55. Despite its representations, TAHA has not conducted its operations in accordance Specifically, the representations were exposed as false when

with such by-laws and rules.

TAHA violated its by-laws and rules regarding granting applications for Tier I status. Furthermore, the TAHA Board violated the conflict of interest policies, and it has been discovered during the deposition of TARA's President Ted Skinner that TAHA does not even enforce such policies, thereby revealing them as a fraudulent charade. 56. When TAHA made the representations that it would be bound by its own by-laws

and rules and those of USA Hockey, it had reason to expect that players and parents would rely on that representation when deciding whether to join TAHA. 57. When deciding whether to join TAHA, Saxon and Mr. Greene relied on the

representation that TARA's would follow such own bylaws and rules. 58. Due to the false representation, Saxon and Mr. Greene suffered injury. The false

representations caused Mr. Greene to lose the value of the money he has provided TAHA, and the value of the money he had invested in his Saxon's development as a player in TAHA. This value was lost because Mr. Greene did not receive the benefits TAHA represented he would when he joined TAHA. In total,Mr. Greene lost at least $50, 000.
X. VIOLATIONS OF TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

59.

Saxon and Mr. Greene paid TAHA for TAHA to provide Saxon with a

competitive league in which to play hockey. As such, Plaintiffs are consumers of services provided by Defendant TAHA.

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 17

60.

During the process of determining whether to pay TAHA for this service, TAHA

represented to Saxon and Mr. Greene that the service provided by TAHA had the characteristic of being subject to certain bylaws and rules, and that the league would be comprised of teams of a certain quality. The service, however, does not have these characteristics. 61. TAHA's false representation about the character of its services caused Mr. Greene

to lose the value of the money he had provided to TAHA and invested in Saxon's development as a hockey player. This value was lost because Mr. Greene did not receive the benefits TAHA represented he would when he joined TAHA. In total, Mr. Greene lost at least $50, 000.
XI. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

62.

TAHA's bylaws and rules amount to a promise to conduct its operations

accordance with those bylaws and rules. This promise was given to Saxon and Mr. Greene. 63. Saxon and Mr. Greene decided to join TAHA due in part to TAHA's promise to

abide by its bylaws and rules. If not for this promise, Saxon and Mr. Greene may not have joined TAHA. 64. It was foreseeable to TAHA that players and parents would see the TAHA bylaws

and rules, and join TAHA expecting TAHA to be required to follow those rules. 65. TAHA's failure to abide by its bylaws and rules is precluding Saxon and Mr.

Greene from receiving their full benefit from participation in TAHA. This injustice can only be rectified by requiring TAHA to comply with its own bylaws and rules.

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 18

xn. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

66.

Plaintiffs maintain that TARA's misrepresentation and deceptive acts were

committed knowingly. 67. Alternatively, TARA's misrepresentations were done negligently. TAHA had a

duty to Plaintiffs not to misrepresent its bylaws, rules, and services, but TAHA breached that duty by making misrepresentations that it knew or should have known were false and misleading, and such conduct was a proximate cause of damage to Plaintiffs.
XIII. CONSPIRACY

68.

Plaintiffs assert based upon good faith belief that Defendant TAHA and certain

members of its board of directors have conspired with others, including individuals and entities, to commit the tortious and other wrongful acts described above, including but not limited to violations of its own rules and by-laws, conflict of interest policies, unfair restraint of competition, breach of contract, fraud, and DTPA violations, and to illegally leverage the protection of TARA's purported status to shield their own actions for personal financial gain from outside oversight.
XIV. DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES

69. damages. 70. 71.

Plaintiffs seek actual damages, exemplary damages and additional statutory

Plaintiffs' damages are in excess of the jurisdictional limits. Plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees and court costs.

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 19

72.

Plaintiffs also seek all further relief and remedy to which they are entitled.
XV. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Plaintiffs be granted: 1. Declaratory Judgment finding Article 14, Section 2 of TAHA's bylaws and its

application and/or enforcement of Section 10(A)(6) of the Annual Guide to be void, and determining TAHA's duties with regard to Tier I applications under its rules. 2. A reconstitution of the TAHA Board and governing structure that prevents

continued anti-competitive behavior. This reconstitution should include, but is not limited to, a fair and just allocation of voting rights among TAHA members. 3. Judgment for its actual damages, consequential damages, statutory damages,

exemplary damages, or, in the alternative, specific performance; 4. 5. entitled. attorneys fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest; and Such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may show themselves justly

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 20

Respectfully submitted,

D. BRADLEY KIZZIA

State Bar No. 11547550


SAMANTHA R. COOPER

State Bar No. 24074071


BROWN FOX KIZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC

8226 Douglas Avenue, Suite 411 Dallas,Texas 75225 (469) 893-9940 Fax: (214) 613-3330

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS BOB GREENE AND BOB GREENE A/N/F SAXON GREENE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned counsel certifies that on the day of June, 2012, a true and cotTect copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded to all known counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
__

D. BRADLEY KIZZIA

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH AMENDED PETITION

Page 2 1