Results 1 to 6 of 6

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5

    Default Restraint Of Trade Matter In California

    I am a would-be golf instructor. I live in Long Beach, CA. I actually live very near the Lakewood Golf Course, in Lakewood, which is an L.A. County-owned golf course, which is leased to "American Golf Co." I asked the lessee if I could rent space on the driving range, that I could give lessons to students which I procured myself (from ads in golf magazines and the internet). They told me "No," basically. Thus, I contacted lessor, L.A. Co. Dept. of Parks and Rec., and their personnel initially told me "No" as well, but did send me a copy of the lease and supporting documents upon my request.

    I read through the lease and NOWHERE does it provide for a monopoly or exclusive use of the lessee on the driving range at the Lakewood golf course. MOREOVER, the lease requires anyone (even the lessee and its employees) who would want to be a golf instructor first be "approved" by the "Director" of L.A. Co. Dept. of Parks and Rec. (Apparently, a quality control measure.) Thus, I tried to contact the "Director" and find out what he wants me to show him to be deemed "approved" to give my lessons to my students at the Lakewood golf course driving range and practice facilities. However, my contact messages (some by email, some by phone) did not reach the Director, and the lower level personnel of L.A. Co. Parks and Rec. just told me to "get lost," basically. Apparently, there is some sort of "status quo" that I am upsetting.

    So I contacted an attorney, but the attorney informed me that the cost of the litigation (Action for Declaratory Relief?) would be too costly to make it worth my while to pursue the matter. Thus, I will have to take on the matter myself, or just forget about my right to access the driving range and give my lessons.

    Can anyone offer me some advice and guidance in this matter?

    And just to be complete:
    1. There is no way that the lessee is going to be hurt by my giving my lessons to my students (which I procured from magazine ads and off the internet myself).
    2. The lessee and lessor will both stand to profit from the extra driving range traffic I would bring to them -- as I haver only once or twice in over two years time seen a golf pro giving lessons at the Lakewood Golf Course driving range, and I have NEVER seen the driving range completely full of customers. Basically, I am not only willing to pay for my golf balls and for the ball used by my student(s), but to pay and additional rental fee for the space(s) I need on the driving range. I would even offer them an appropriate percentage of the lesson fees! They can't lose, they can only profit.
    3. There is no way to give golf lessons in the area without access to a driving range. I get the same story from the operators of every golf course -- they just don't want anyone but their own pros to have access to the facilities they own or lease. But it isn't like golf courses and driving ranges are on every street corner -- they are few and far between.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Restraint Of Trade Matter (in CA), Need Advice!

    If they have never allowed an instructor to do what you propose, then they don't have a businsess model or procedure established for doing so. I would think that such a proposal would have limitations (If they allowed one, they would have to allow others. What would the selection process be? How many? At what point would the driving range become more a private enterpise than a facility for the public's use and enjoyment? ) Contracts would have to be created and reviewed by the City Attorney's office or Risk Management Department. Fees would have to be established through a City Council agenda item. And what would they receive in return? What is the "business proposal"? You could keep trying by submitting a business proposal, and possibly contact your councilman for advice or a SCORE business advisor, and maybe review other city's similar ranges and if they allow instructors, etc. to give your proposal some meat and see how they accomplished it. And there may be something else in a municipal ordinance that prohibits what you want to accomplish. Make sure there isn't something like that which will be insurrmountable. In any event, you're asking them to do a lot of work for you outside their normal scope of duties, and the Department head needs to see that it is something for them to want as well in order for him/her to get behind it and make it happen. And be nice and professional at all times.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Restraint Of Trade Matter (in CA), Need Advice!

    Gee, you make it sound so complicated! My hope is that this issue can be kept simple and sweet.

    I'm talking about giving golf lessons to my students which I have procured. I do not want to be teaching them with simulators, but with real golf balls on an old fashioned driving range. A very simple thing, something that is easy to do. Of course, I know that the city (actually the County of L.A. in this case) will want its due. HOWEVER, from the lease it seems that there is absolutely NO payment to the county for GOLF lesson fees collected by the lessee -- only for driving range revenues (i.e. 10% of revenues from sales of buckets of balls). Of course, maybe the lessee and lessor would want me to sign some sort of insurance agreement -- which I am willing to do! But the talks haven't gotten that far as of yet. In fact, as you ask me to contact the city (or County in this case) and make a proposal, I simply can't get through to the director of parks and rec. Personnel there intercept my messages to the director (who seems to be in charge of lesson giving at all L.A. Co. courses) and tell me to "get lost" (basically). So, maybe I should attend a County meeting of the board of directors or whomever it is and report this nonsense and submit my business proposal to them.

    Anyway, from the lease agreement it seems that the lessee is paying nothing to the county for the fees collected for golf instruction they give to students that their golf pros/employees give lessons. How much they would fairly charge me then would seem to be "zero!" However, I am willing to pay them whatever they think is fair. I'd even give them a percentage of my lesson fees if that's what it takes.

    But I have continued my investigations...

    ...I got one tid bit off the internet, about reporters that were making their own newspapers and selling them outside of a public stadium. The stadium tried to ban them, but the courts protected their first amendment right.

    Of course, I'd want to be on the driving range, not on the sidewalk. This would, however, be a for profit business (as is the matter of selling newspapers outside public stadiums).

    Further, and this just occurs to me; is a golf lesson the kind of thing that would be protected under the first amendment? It is certainly a lawful business practice, and so my right to liberty is in question (right?), but now I'm thinking that the right of free speech and assembly (regardless of the profit motive) is involved. What would you think about that?

    And one last thing:
    I would say they should allow each and every person that wants to give lessons, until it becomes clear that too many people are giving lessons, and interfering with the flow of the driving range. However, under the model I proposed the lessor and lessee would make more profit from doing business with me than to exclude me as they are. But profit alone is not the point, of course. People who just want a little practice need access to the driving range too, and too many lesson givers would interfere with that. Here we are worrying about something that just isn't going to happen. Like I think I mentioned, I have seen pros giving lessons to students about 2 or 3 times in 2 years of frequenting (2 times per week) that driving range. It just isn't an issue. But if it ever did become an issue, then they could certainly limit it. Have a sign-up sheet for space available for the giving of lessons -- simple solution to a problem that probably won't ever come up.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Restraint Of Trade Matter In California

    But you're not an employee of the lessee. If nothing prohibits you from giving lessons at the range and charging your students for a lesson, then just do it. Why complicate things?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Restraint Of Trade Matter In California

    Here's the deal Kandi6;
    I am, indeed, strongly debating doing as you say. But given what they told me at the front desk of the golf course I will garner a ration of heck from them the moment they see me teaching a student in a formal manner. Indeed, though they have no express right to deny me of the access, they will bully me right off the course and in front of my student. That's one student that I will lose and I will probably not be welcome on the course again. (They were very ANGRY that I even suggested that I would like to give lessons to my students at their driving range. And now that I think about it, maybe they are bluffing me, by trying to intimidate me into thinking there is no way I could give lessons on their driving range. Sort of like the way local surfers try to protect their spots from tourists and other surfers not considered "locals.")

    I AM TAKING YOUR ADVICE HERE; I have contacted the county board of supervisors and they do have times I can speak to the supervisors and discuss the matter of making the course driving range available to persons such as myself so that I can give (paid) lessons to my students.

    I do understand that they will want to talk to me about liability. Here is where I need some help and advice (before I speak to the board). The county takes no responsibility for any injury to any person on or off the golf course. It seems they have a policy that golfers are responsible for any damage they do to the surrounding properties or to other golfers on the course. However, I would not imagine that if a golfer hits a ball out on the main street (Carson) and breaks a windshield that the golf course can say "not our fault" and leave it to the victim to find the perpetrator. Thus, the county certainly has at least that much liability. But by me paying a reasonable rental fee to the lessee for the space I take-up on their driving range (e.g. $15-20 per hour) then I would certainly be paying more than my fair share of the liability insurance for the golf course lessee and lessor. However, I can see the lessee being a jerk about the whole thing and insisting I have my own independent policy for such liability (on and off the golf course). That should not be a problem, actually. I'm sure that there are lots of companies that have such policies, even to protect me in case a student would claim I caused them a pain in the back or something. (Of course, I would have student's sign a waiver in that regard too.)

    Anyway, I'm still working out the details.

    We shall see how county board receives my presentation (where I am limited to 3 minutes speaking time).

    If you have any suggestions as to what I should specifically present to them, feel free to advise me!

    Thanks.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Restraint Of Trade Matter In California

    This is a follow-up:
    I have contacted the L.A. county board of supervisors, and they told me to get lost. My only choice is to take the matter to a court room. I have also contacted the same "lessee" (course management company) about the courses they manage in the city of Long Beach, and let them know I would like to give lessons there at those courses too. They told me they think they have an absolute monopoly in Long Beach too. Again, nothing in the Long Beach lease (property management agreement) says they have an exclusive right to give lessons at those Long Beach golf courses. I did talk to the City Counsel in Long Beach 2 weeks ago, and in my 3 minutes I explained the situation, and they contacted me, and agreed that I am correct in principle. But up to that point in time the city attorney's office was telling me they would support the monopoly 100%. Why they would do that is beyond me, because the lease makes it clear, no monopoly is granted. (And if I understand the California statute of frauds correctly....) However, nothing has happened in 2 weeks. My guess is they will ultimately support the monopolist also, and simply claim they truly intended to give this golf course management company a monopoly even on the matter of giving golf lessons.

    Thus, I will need to take these parties to court.

    Additionally, I will be advertising my golf lessons to citizens of other states, and advertising even nationally. I believe that this then becomes a matter of "interference in interstate commerce?" As such, is the "least restrictive means" test applicable? (If it is I can easily point out that there is no reason why I should be prevented from giving my lessons to my students on those PUBLIC golf course properties, as neither government party made the issue of "golf lessons to the public" a condition of the lease. But even if they did, under the least restrictive means test...)

    Further, in California there is Bus. and Prof. Code sec. 17200 which prohibits monopolies, and as a matter of public policy. Of all the natural monopolies present at those golf courses, the giving of golf lessons to students there is NOT one of them. Indeed, the driving range and first hole at one of the Long Beach courses was rented out for wedding receptions on a Sunday and Monday last week. Indeed, if the golf course management company can rent out that much of the facilities for that long how much interference in their business could I possibly cause if I was to give lessons there? (This is one of the golf course management company's assertions, that I would interfere in their business... blah blah.)

    Additionally, the city charter of Long Beach says that if the city Counsel should sell off public recreational land that the city must replace that sold off land with an equal portion of land with the same function (e.g. another golf course) and then provide an additional and equal size portion of land to the parks and recreation department of Long Beach. Well, that "wedding" purpose is NOT a golf purpose, and there are PLENTY of other parks and areas where weddings can be held (and the city of Long Beach would be happy to rent space in those parks for such a purpose -- so there is no need to shut down the driving range and the first hole of one of the golf courses to do weddings instead of golf on those courses). It seems to me that if the City Counsel has allowed a public golf course to be taken over in such a way as to make it a part time wedding business run by a private company that claims a monopoly on the property then the City Charter is being violated in part.

    Again, nothing in the lease says this private golf course management company has a monopoly on the matter of giving golf lessons on those facilities. And it only makes economic sense to allow me to give lessons to my students there, as that will increase revenues for the property management company and for the City of Long Beach. As such, I would have to assume I have a right, as much right as any person who would have a wedding on the property and totally monopolize the entire driving range for 2 days straight, to be able to rent just one little space on the driving range on reasonable terms on occasion. And if I have a "right" to such use of the property, and if this prop. management company is infringing upon that right (which they clearly are) then I believe I could claim a PUBLIC NUISANCE, and sue them for damages? Correct?

    Can anyone add anything here?

    I definitely want to make all the claims I can.

    And what do you think I need? An injunction? And because of the fact that I have a "right" to such use of the property would a "petition for writ of ordinary mandate" be proper as well (and as good as an injunction)?

    And because I have fully informed the City and the County of L.A. might I sue not only the property management company but these government entities as well for damages? (Where I already filed a claim with the County of L.A.). Consider, the county of L.A. stated they "support" the monopolist here, and the City of Long Beach's city attorney has said the same thing.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Restrictive Covenants: Restraint Period
    By Rocco in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-09-2008, 03:28 AM
  2. Education Law Issues: Can't Get Tuition Refund, Rules Not Disclosed
    By CSUStudent in forum Education Law
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 02:35 AM
  3. Verbal Agreement for a Car Trade in California
    By T-VIS in forum Vehicle Registration and Title
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-02-2007, 08:26 PM
  4. Problems with Dealer Paying Off Trade-In, in California
    By bayarea in forum Cars and Dealerships
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 05-25-2007, 06:45 PM
  5. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Pretrial Restraint
    By r1ta in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-13-2007, 08:18 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources