Restraint of trade, so I can't give golf lessons!

[Billy]

I am a would-be golf instructor who needs a place to give lessons. The local golf courses, all run by American Golf Co. (lessee) or by other private concerns, will NOT let me offer my lessons or rent space at their driving ranges. So I am shut out of the local areas such that I would have to build my own driving range just to be able to give lessons. I am hoping that this is an unfair restraint of trade, and that I will have some legal recourse here.

Now, Let me give some details:

The best place for me to give lessons is Lakewood Golf Course (as it is close to me and it is a public/L.A. County-owned course). The range is never completely full, and rarely ever is a pro giving lessons. I would NOT be competing for the same students, as my students would be procured from the internet and advertisements in magazines. In fact, (and a fact I think I can prove with no problem,) if the lessee and County would allow me to rent space on the Lakewood driving range the revenues of the lessee and County would only increase. Anyway, I asked the lessee if I may rent space on the range? They said NO (and offered me some unbusiness-like gibberish as a justification). So I contacted the lessor, L.A. County Dept. of Parks and Rec., and they said NO also, but provided me with the lease documents.

In studying the lease documents; NOWHERE in the lease is the lessee granted any exclusive right to provide lessons. FURTHER, anyone who would want to be a golf instructor and give lessons on the Lakewood driving range must first be "approved" of by the Director of L.A. County Dept. of Parks (i.e. this must be some sort of "quality control" measure). Thus, I recontacted County Dept. of Parks employees and I asked to speak to the Director, to get myself "approved" to give lessons at the Lakewood driving range. However, they just avoided the issue, they won't put me through to the Director, and told me to get lost (basically).

And so here I am now, stagnating. I want to be giving my golf lessons now! But for this (minor) conspiracy to keep me from giving my lessons I cannot. I have seen no postings that private instructors cannot give lessons at the Lakewood driving range but I was told by staff at the Lakewood Golf Course they would remove anyone who attempted to give lessons to students.

Again, there is no good reason for denying me the chance to get "approved" as a golf instructor by the "Director" so I can give my lessons at the Lakewood driving range. This is because 1) I present no real competitive threat to the lessee and its golf instructor(s), because I will only give my lessons to my students which I independently solicited through advertisements on the internet and magazines. 2) my activities as a "golf instructor" would only serve to increase the revenue of both the lessee and the County. And, perhaps most importantly, 3) there is no right granted in the lease to the lessee to the exclusive use of the driving range at the Lakewood Golf Course, such that they would by terms of the lease be able to exclude me from giving my golf lessons to my students.

What is needed now? Action for Declaratory Relief?

 

[Billy]

Update;
An attorney I contacted told me that she was pretty sure that the Declaratory Relief action was appropriate, but that attorney's fees could not likely be recovered. Also, that the cost of the litigation would likely outweigh the benefit or enjoyment of enforcing my right to give lessons.

America, land of liberty and justice for all!

 

[Billy]

Another update;
In searching the internet for "access to public property" I found a page that went over the matter, and from a "first amendment" stance. This is good I think because then I could claim a "fundamental right" is being violated(?). And if a "fundamental right" is being violated then the county government (if it comes down to me vs. the county) would have to show a "compelling state interest" in preventing me from giving lessons (isn't that right?), not just a rational basis for the restriction. But I digress, here is a cut and paste of what I read:

The fact that property is owned by the government does not necessarily make it a public forum. Courts allow greater restriction on speech and access on property that traditionally has not been open for general public use, such as courthouses, jails, government offices, city halls and public schools. This type of property is often referred to as non-public-forum public property.

A federal court in Providence, R.I., reached a similar conclusion in 1986, affirming the city civic center's authority to keep cameras out of rock concerts held at the center. Concerned that the center's ability to generate revenue would be limited if it could not honor performers' requests for camera bans, the court found that the center was acting in a proprietary capacity and upheld the restriction. (D'Amario v. Providence Civic Center Authority)

However, in 1987 a federal court in Cleveland ruled that a state Democratic Party organization holding a convention in the Cleveland Civic Center could not admit some journalists, while barring others. The court held that, even though the facility was leased to a private organization, the private group was still bound by the same rules that applied to the use of municipal property for government functions. (National Broadcasting Co. v. Association of State Democratic Chairs)

The same rules would apply to sports stadiums. The right of officials to deny access will depend on ownership and lease agreements for particular events. However, some independent reporters who publish their own papers have encountered opposition on public sidewalks outside of stadiums. In these cases, the general right of access to public property dictates that these publishers have a First Amendment right to sell their newspapers on the sidewalks.​

http://www.rcfp.org/places/notallpublicpropertyisapublicforum.html

My guess would be that as the lease agreement does not even specify any exclusive right for the lessee to utilize the Lakewood driving range for the matter of giving golf (paid) lessons to students, then this court decision(s) (which I haven't been able to locate yet) would probably carry some weight to support my side of the argument (I would hope).

Feel free, anyone, to chime in!