Bryan v. LQR Golf CA4/2
E073117
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 10, 2021Background
- Scott and Carmella Bryan owned a La Quinta home (with a refundable "Resident Heritage" golf membership purchased in 2001) and a condominium purchased in 2014 (no second membership).
- In 2017 they decided to sell the home and either transfer the membership to the condo or take a refund and buy a new nonrefundable condominium-based membership; the club offered either transfer or a refund plus a new-membership option that included $42,192 in "back dues."
- Escrow for the home sale collapsed when buyers refused to pay the back dues; the Bryans sold the home in January 2018, transferred the premium membership to the buyers, received the roughly $64,000 refund, and then applied (late) for a $30,000 nonrefundable membership tied to the condo.
- The Bryans’ membership application expressly stated approval "shall be at [the club's] discretion." The club rejected the late application and returned the $30,000.
- The Bryans sued for declaratory relief and damages seeking a declaration they could purchase the $30,000 membership (and contending the club could not lawfully impose back dues); the trial court granted summary judgment for LQR Golf, holding the club is a private club entitled to associational-privacy protection and the court cannot compel membership; leave to amend was denied as untimely and futile.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bryan) | Defendant's Argument (LQR Golf) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the club is a private association entitled to First Amendment associational-privacy protection | Club is commercial, for-profit, not member-controlled, and lacks expressive purpose, so associational protection is limited | Club is selective, membership-limited, facilities not generally open, governed by a membership plan and director discretion | Club is a private club under the governing-factor test and is entitled to associational protection |
| Whether a court can compel the club to accept the Bryans’ late membership application or declare they can buy the $30,000 membership | Bryans say the club’s attorney letters and membership rules created an enforceable offer and the club must comply with its governing documents | Club points to its reserved discretion to approve applicants and constitutional right to select members; no claim of discriminatory motive | Court cannot compel membership or grant the requested declaration; summary judgment for club affirmed |
| Whether the club violated the membership plan by requiring "back dues" for late applicants | Bryans contend they satisfied membership eligibility and the $30,000 purchase should have been accepted | Club relies on membership plan provisions: 30-day post-closing window, ability to consider late applicants and require back dues for legitimate business reasons | Membership plan permits limiting post-30-day offers and requires back dues for late applicants; club’s requirement is lawful |
| Whether denial of leave to amend (to add damage causes) was an abuse of discretion | Bryans argue leave should be granted to plead damages and alternate causes after the club’s motion | Club argues amendment was untimely, prejudicial, and futile because facts showed Bryans’ losses resulted from their own choices | Denial affirmed: motion to amend was untimely and amendment would be futile given undisputed facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (First Amendment associational-rights framework)
- Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537 (factors for determining private-association protection)
- Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club, 10 Cal.4th 594 (California application of associational privacy to clubs)
- Olympic Club v. Superior Court, 229 Cal.App.3d 358 (associational privacy protects membership applications)
- Youngblood v. Wilcox, 207 Cal.App.3d 1368 (distinguishable case addressing wrongful expulsion and injunctive relief)