J. CHAD MOORE, ESQUIRE
PA76660
270 Market Street
Millersburg, PA 17061
Telephone: 717-692-5533
Fax: 717-692-5111
E-mail: jcmesquire@mac.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jimbo’s Bowling Group, Inc., on behalf of ) Civil Action No.:
itself and all others similarly situated, ))
Plaintiff ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
)
v. ))
UNITED STATES BOWLING CONGRESS ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________ )
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Jimbo’s Bowling Group, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, files this Class Action Complaint against the United States Bowling
Congress (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges the following based on its own experiences and
otherwise based on information and belief.
1. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of itself and as a representative of a
class of entities and individual owners of bowling centers in the United States who have suffered
financial damages as a result of the actions and policies of Defendant.
2. Defendant, a nonprofit entity organized under the laws of the state of Wisconsin,
is the national governing body for bowling in the United States with over 2.6 million members
nationwide.
3. Pursuant to its own bylaws, the USBC’s purposes include: “fostering local, state,
national and international amateur competition in the sport of bowling; providing governance
and development for, and developing interest and participation in, the sport of bowling
throughout the United States and internationally as determined by the Board of Directors; being
responsible to members; keeping those engaged in the sport of bowling informed of policy
matters and reasonably reflecting their views in policy decisions; certifying and regulating
league and tournament competition for bowling.”
4. Over a period of many years Defendant has intentionally and/or negligently
abrogated its duties in maintaining a fair and equitable league and tournament certification
process and has failed in its larger duty of fostering competition and participation by its failure to
protect the integrity of the sport itself.
5. As a result of Defendant’s intentional and/or negligent acts and omissions in its
role as the governing body of the sport of bowling, Plaintiff and members of the Class have
unnecessarily suffered damages in the form of lost revenue, loss of goodwill, damage to
reputation and other damages which Defendant knew or should have known would result from
its intentional and/or negligent conduct.
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff is a commercial bowling center located in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff is subject to certification by the USBC in order to host league and tournament
competition. Plaintiff’s ongoing business viability is largely dependent upon Defendant properly
executing its duties as the governing body of the sport of bowling . Plaintiff, individually and as
a representative of a Class of similarly situated individuals/entities (defined below), brings suit
against the named Defendant for intentional and/or negligent acts and omissions that have
caused extensive damages to Plaintiff and members of the Class.
7. Defendant is an nonprofit corporation established under the laws of the State of
Wisconsin with its principal place of business in Wisconsin and is the national governing body
for the sport of bowling.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. The Court has original jurisdiction over this complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d) and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Publ. L. 109-2 (Feb. 18, 2005); and
over supplemental state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.
9. Venue is proper in this district since Defendant transacted business in this district,
and the conduct complained of occurred in this district, as well as elsewhere in Pennsylvania.
Venue is further proper in this district under, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 and/or Publ. L.
109-2.
FACTS
USBC Lane Certification
10. Plaintiff is the corporation that owns and operates “Park Lanes”, a commercial
bowling center in Shippensburg, PA.
11. A significant portion of Plaintiff’s business consists of league bowling, which
requires lane certification by the USBC in order to be sanctioned by the USBC. As a practical
matter a bowling center has no choice but to seek USBC certification in order to host bowling
leagues.
12. The USBC lane certification process is performed by local chapters of the USBC,
for Plaintiff it is the Greater Harrisburg chapter.
13. The individuals performing lane certifications on behalf of the USBC are not
monitored or accountable to the USBC. In fact, these individuals often have direct or indirect
financial or other interests in bowling centers themselves, thus creating a situation that allows for
business competitors to have a direct impact on the certification process.
14. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that it has lost significant revenue from the
loss of league bowling business as a direct result of the unethical and ultimately fraudulent
certification process sanctioned by the USBC, both in direct inexplicable problems in obtaining
certification and in false rumors circulated regarding certification. Said rumors have led leagues
to move to other bowling centers to the detriment of Plaintiff.
15. Defendants knew or should have known that bowling proprietors constitute a
significant portion of the local USBC chapter membership. This membership has a direct
negative impact on the certification process. This inherent and undeniable conflict of interest
constitutes a core flaw of the certification process, thus interfering with the rights of all bowling
center owners to engage in fair and equitable competition in an open market.
16. Despite this obvious conflict of interest, Defendant has steadfastly refused to
recognize that there is any problem with the certification process, thus compounding the
financial impact on the affected bowling centers and on the negative impact on the sport as a
whole.
Integrity of the Game
17. In addition to the lane certification process, Defendant serves as the de facto
“caretaker” of the sport of bowling under the purview of advancing the sport and fostering
competition.
18. The USBC and its predecessor organizations have utterly failed in maintainig the
integrity of the game in favor of accommodating the supposed demand for the casual bowler to
be able to achieve higher scores. The USBC has cow towed to a minority of shortsighted
bowling center proprietors seeking to artificially inflate bowling scores through a systematic
bastardization of the playing surface itself.
19. As a result, the USBC has failed to maintain the integrity of the game by allowing
the playing surface (referred to as “lane conditions”) to be artificially enhanced for normal
league play so as to inflate bowling scores based on lane conditions rather than on the skill of the
bowler.
20. The USBC and some members of the bowling community have engaged in a tacit,
desperate conspiracy to make the game easier so as to try to keep more participants interested in
the sport. The result, however, has been to create an unfair and inequitable competition among
bowling centers, while other centers have an inherent ceiling on the ease of play due to various
factors with the facility itself.
21. A typical bowler has no means to judge or compare the relative difficulty of lane
conditions from one bowling center to another, and thus will tend to frequent centers that are
able to take full advantage of the USBC sanctioned artificial enhancements to lane conditions.
22. In addition to the unfair competition created by the rules regarding lane
conditions, bowling centers overall have lost significant amount of business previously
generated by those bowlers who chose to enhance their game through practice sessions. The
lane conditions sanctioned by the USBC have become so easy that bowlers do not need to
practice to have success bowling on these lanes.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
23. Plaintiff brings this action on its own behalf and as a Class action pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following proposed class:
All individuals and entities operating bowling centers between 1980 and 2007 that were
damaged as a result of Defendants’ alleged misconduct. Upon completion of discovery with
respect to the scope of the Class, Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class definition.
Excluded from the Class are Defendant, its parents, subsidiaries and affiliates, directors and
officers, and members of their immediate families. Also excluded from the Class are the court,
the Courts spouse, all persons within the third degree of relationship to the Court and its spouse
and the spouses of all such persons.
24. The Class is composed of hundreds to thousands of individuals and entities
throughout the country, and is sufficiently numerous for class treatment. The joinder of all Class
members individually in one action would be impracticable, and the disposition of their claims in
a class action will provide substantial benefits to the parties and the Court.
25. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the the claims of the Class, and Plaintiff has no
interests adverse to the interests of other members of the Class.
26. There are questions of law and fact common to all Class members that
predominate over questions affecting any individual members, including the following:
(a) Whether Defendant violated unfair competition and restraint of trade laws;
(b) Whether Defendant engaged in the alleged fraudulent acts and omissions;
(c) Whether Defendant knew or recklessly disregarded the alleged effect its acts and
omissions had in creating an unfair and inequitable market;
(d) Whether Defendant conduct constitutes a breach of contract;
(e) Whether Class members have been injured by Defendants’ conduct;
(f) Whether Class members have sustained damages and are entitled to restitution as
a result of Defendants’ acts, and if so, what is that proper measure and appropriate formula to be
applied in determining such damages and restitution, including the availability of punitive
damages.
(g) Whether Class members are entitled to injunctive relief.
27. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has
retained counsel for the prosecution of class action litigation.
28. A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication
of the claims herein asserted. Plaintiffs anticipate that no unusual difficulties are likely to be
encountered in the management of this class action.
29. A class action will permit a large number of similarly situated persons/entities to
prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without
duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would engender.
30. Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
entire Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a
whole.
COUNT I
UNFAIR COMPETITION / RESTRAINT OF TRADE
31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other allegations in the Complaint into this Cause
of Action, except such allegations as may be inconsistent herewith (which are plead in the
alternative). Plaintiff alleges this cause of action on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated.
32. Defendant. as the governing body of the sport of bowling, is liable for creating
and sanctioning an unfair market environment, thus directly interfering with the right of all
bowling centers to compete fairly.
33. Plaintiff has suffered lost revenue, lost goodwill and other damages.
COUNT II
NEGLIGENCE
34. Plaintiff incorporates all other allegations in the Complaint into this cause of
action, except such allegations as may be inconsistent herewith (which are plead in the
alternative). Plaintiff alleges this cause of action on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated.
35. Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff to perform its duties as the governing body of
the sport and caretaker of the game in a reasonable, fair and competent manner.
36. Defendant breached its duty of care to Plaintiff by failing to maintain fair
competition, by failing to adequately protect the integrity of the game, and by failing to take
sufficient measures to avoid conflicts of interest in the lane certification process.
37. Defendant’s breaches of duty were the actual and proximate cause of damage to
Plaintiff.
COUNT III
BREACH OF CONTRACT
38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other allegations in the Complaint into this Cause
of Action, except such allegations as may be inconsistent herewith (which are plead in the
alternative). Plaintiff alleges this cause of action on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated.
39. The facts as set forth above also constitute the formation and breach of a contract
between the Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant’s breaches, as
previously set forth.
COUNT IV
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
40. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other allegations in the Complaint into this Cause
of Action, except such allegations as may be inconsistent herewith (which are plead in the
alternative). Plaintiff alleges this cause of action on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated.
41. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants’ acts Plaintiff
suffered damages. Despite its status as a nonprofit corporation, Defendant benefits from its role
as a governing body as evidenced by a significant financial surplus, even as its acts cause
Plaintiff to incur damages.
42. Defendant has accepted and retained benefits derived from members, including
Plaintiff, with knowledge and awareness that, as a result of Defendant’s conduct, it was failing in
its role as the governing body of bowling and thereby causing damages and hardship to Plaintiff
and similarly situated bowling centers.
43. By virtue of the acts alleged here, Defendant has been unjustly enriched at the
expense of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to, and seeks, the disgorgement and restitution of
Defendant’s wrongful profits, revenues, and benefits, to the extent and in the amount deemed
appropriate by the Court. Plaintiff is also entitled to, and seeks such other relief as the Court
deems just and proper to remedy Defendant’s unjust enrichment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the Class, prays for the following relief:
A. An order certifying the Class as defined above;
B. An award of actual damages, restitution, and/or disgorgement from Defendants of
the benefits conferred by Plaintiff and the Class;
C. Reimbursement of appropriate expenses;
D. Appropriate injunctive relief;
E. Appropriate statutory and punitive damages;
F. Pre- and post-judgment interest to the Class;
G. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and
H. Such further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff requests trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.
_/s/ J. Chad Moore____
J. Chad Moore, Esquire
PA76660
270 Market Street
Millersburg, PA 17061
Tel: 717-692-5533
Fax: 717-692-5111
E-mail: jcmesquire@mac.com
Date: