March 5, 2025 1:00 PM RCSC Board Actions Result in Lawsuit H. John Fast After extensive outreach to RCSC Board and Management failed to produce any response, I initiated a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court to compel RCSC to allow voting on member made motions at the Annual Membership Meeting to be held on March 11 at 6:00PM in the Sundial auditorium if a quorum of 500 is present. The lawsuit which was filed on March 3, 2023 maintains, perhaps contrary to the advice the board sought from its lawyer, that the corporate documents require members be allowed to conduct business at their Annual Membership Meeting if a quorum is present. The lawsuit is known as Harold John Fast vs. The Board of Directors of the Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. & Tom Foster President of the Board of Directors of RCSC. Electronic copies of the filing are available upon request. ( please see below ) The lawsuit also requests the court to order legal discovery of RCSC Board Members, Employees and examination of records to determine if the corporate documents or Arizona Revised Statutes were violated when the Board and Management took this and other actions. No monetary damages are being pursued at this time. If you want an electronic copy of the lawsuit simply respond – Copy please and provide your email. If you may be interested in joining this lawsuit - Simply say I am interested and provide your email. I will then send you a summary of the lawsuit so you can determine whether you want to be involved. In connection with the actions taken by the Board, I also took the precautionary measure of sending a Written Demand to Take Suitable Action which is required in advance of any member derivative lawsuit pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Title 10 Chapter 29 Article 1 Section 10-3632. I took this action solely to protect my own legal rights but understand that any such a lawsuit may involve a claim against RCSC on behalf of all members. No such derivative lawsuit has yet been filed but members are invited to show interest in joining such a lawsuit by simply responding “ Show me more” to this post. I regret having to take these actions. I tried every avenue to avoid this. Nothing worked so I had to turn to the court for help. I hope the members understand. I have always done my best to be a positive example of civility and will continue to do so throughout these legal proceedings.
John, Is your announcement just for TOSC members/readers, or may it be shared with anyone, by directing them to TOSC link to your post? Thanks Also, may want to edit, “The lawsuit which was filed on March 3, 2023…”
John, if you are requesting injunctive relief and same is granted, what purpose is the discovery, especially since you have not requested monetary damages? Also are you fast tracking this action because the meeting is next Tuesday. Has RCSC filed an answer? I would like a copy of the statutory citations for this action and a list of what what you are expecting from the judge in the prayer. Why not a class action instead of members, who might not understand all the legal jargon, to join in. I would like to know as we may be treading on dangerous ground
Yes - This is pro se (self-represented litigant). A class action lawsuit will cost each side a great deal of money which I do not want for either side. I do not know what the Board's position is as they do not respond. I am seeking an emergency request to appear before the court tomorrow to try and understand where we stand and ask the court to issue an order to require voting. As a member I am very disheartened that the Board has chosen to not represent the members. This is my opinion, but I think it is clear to all that the Board is doing whatever it wants to do. Will this increase member engagement? Probably but not in the way we want it to.
Actually, a class action would not cost a great deal of money. If you have an emergency hearing today where you probably requested a TRO, which are normally for a week and it is granted, the meeting held and a ton of motions voted on, would that render the action moot except for the discovery motion which might be denied due to the case being moot. As for the attorneys for RCSC not responding, I would say the paperwork was given to the D&O insurer and their attorneys. Having seen the way they fucked up the Anne Stewart action, I would have made it a class action since they are more accustomed to product liability class actions than something like this. You may think I am some sort of Buffoon in this legal thing, but I worked on class actions for four years from gathering plaintiffs through trial. When I said I have a JD in street law, this was my Civil Pro and evidence class. Maybe you might want to take my opinions a little more seriously. BTW, one of the attorneys who assisted me was my roommate who had just graduated from University of Toledo Law School. He went on to have to have a 40 year career doing death penalty appellate work and argued before the Supreme Court three time and won. Josie, if you still have access to my defunk Facebook account, the picture of three guys, he is on the right.
Timing! I doubt it would be there, kind of like you never worked in Englewood which is on the South side of Chicago. You can't get a JD thru osmosis. Many lawyers who worked for that degree would be offended by your remark.
Thank you all for being engaged in the process whether you have formal training or do not have formal training. In my opinion the issue we have is whether the members have the right to vote. I say yes the board and GM say no.
Dave, The only reason paperwork would be given to D&O insurer is Board is concerned it violated the Bylaws - No?
I feel the board would find it prudent to give the paperwork to the insurer as an initial step for clarification of the suit. D&O insurance provides crucial protection for company leaders, allowing them to focus on making decisions that drive success without the constant fear of personal financial risk. By offering coverage for legal defense and settlement costs, D&O insurance is a vital part of a company’s overall risk management strategy, ensuring that both individuals and the business itself are protected from unexpected lawsuits and claims. I do not see the issue as an indication of the board fears violating anything. I see this as a precaution to the litigation process and will be awaiting further decisions from the RCSC attorneys as to how they want to proceed.
Just an FYI there is a post on Nextdoor about the lawsuit that received 3 "likes" and 1 reply that was an exclamation point emoji. Something tells me people don't care.
Since they have only been served, it would be smart to file a notice of claim with the insurer to protect their bottoms. The insurer’s claim department would be making the decision whether to send to outside counsel or not. Why not violation of the Articles also?
Carol, You could be right. However, I just do not understand why the Board would not reach out to the motion makers.
In all honesty, I do not understand why the board has taken a stance of silence. If these actions by the board of directors are being taken based upon the advice of the attorney, then it’s time to get a different attorney. This position that has been taken is ludicrous at best, and criminal at its worst. Yes, depending on interpretation, the board could also be in violation of the articles. We, the members, cannot demand a different opinion from a different attorney, but it should be clear to the board this would be a prudent decision. With each passing hour, as the meeting time draws closer, and there is no communication from the board, the more likely the members are becoming increasingly frustrated and angry. They are setting the tone for this meeting to be one of a mob mentality, in which nothing will be achieved and just create a greater rift between the members and the board.
