STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF BEAUFORT
JUNIOR SPORTS CORPORATION,
INC.,
Plaintif,
V.
)
)
)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
(Case No. 2013-CP-07-02589)
ANSWER
W
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
f `
DAVID GOOLSBY and JUNIOR )
GOLF ACADEMY OF HILTON HEAD, )
INC.,
)
Defendants.
)
)

)
` .

t
The Defendants, David D. Goolsby (herein "Mr. Goolsby") and Junior Golf
Academy of Hilton Head Inc. (herein "JGAHHI") , answer the Complaint by respectfully
alleging the following:
FOR A FIRST DEFENSE
(Denial)
1. Each and every allegation of the Complaint not herein afer expressly
admitted is denied.
2. The Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief with respect to

C
C
the allegations of paragraph 1 of the Complaint, therefore deny them and demand strict
proof thereof.
Further answering paragraph 1, the Defendants would show that the internet site
for the South Carolina Secretary of State has no listing to establish the organization or
authorization to do business of an entity known as "Junior Sports Corporation, Inc., " or
of an name substantially similar thereto.
|l|l L
'l
3. The Defendants admit so much of paragraph 2 of the Complaint as
alleges that Mr. Goolsby resid es at Hilton Head Island in Beaufort County, South
Carolina, but the Defendants deny that he "was previously an employee of JSC," for two
reasons: (a) The issues with regard to the Plaintif's organization that are set forth in
paragraph 2 of this Answer; and (b) the fact that the Defendant's pay stubs reflect that
his compensation was paid by International Junior Golf Tour (herein "IJGT", a South
Carolina corporation that merged with IJGT Acquisition Company on May 2, 2007, and
subsequently was administratively dissolved by the Secretary of State on October 14,
2010.
4. The allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint are admitted.
5. The allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint state only conclusions of
law, which are denied .
6. The allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint are denied in the same
manner and to the same extent as is set forth in paragraphs 1 through 4 of this Answer.
7. The allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint are admited.
8. Subject to the denials in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Answer, the
Defend ants admit so much of paragraph 7 of the Complaint as impors or implies that,
prior to April of 2013, Mr. Goolsby was employed as a coach for junior golfers either by
IJGT or by International Junior Golf Acad emy (herein "IJGA") , though his human
resources file lists his job title as "residential instructor."
9. The Defendants admit so much of paragraph 8 as imports or implies that
Mr. Goolsby became acquainted with the system of instruction used at IJGA, which at
the time was the Hank Haney method , and that he became acquainted with some
2
1/llllf
- t
students, especially those whom he taught, as well as with their parents, and that he
knew some managers, other coaches and "faculty" of Heritage Academy and otherwise,
but the Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 8, and they expressly
deny any implication that Mr. Goolsby, as a Ledbetter-trained golf coach, in any manner
now teaches the Hank Haney method, now utilizes any technique similar to the IJGA
form of management, now places students in an academic curriculum even remotely
similar to that of Heritage Academy or otherwise emulates IJGT and IJGA in any
material way.
10. The allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint are flatly denied, and the
Defendants would show that there were no trade secrets of which Mr. Goolsby "was
informed" or that he "should reasonably have known."
11. The Defendants admit so much of paragraph 10 of the Complaint as
impors or implies that Mr. Goolsby was not subject to a written contract of employment,
a secrecy agreement, a non-compete agreement or any other form of agreement that
would have impeded or impaired his future employment or the use in such employment
of the experience that he had gained during his working life about the most appropriate
method of teaching junior golfers, but the Defendants deny the remaining allegations of
paragraph 10.
12. The allegations of paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Complaint are denied.
13. The allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint are denied in the same
manner and to the same extent as is set forth in paragraph 1 through 11 of this Answer.
14. The Defendants admit so much of paragraph 14 of the Complaint as
imports or implies that IJGA has contractual relationships with the parents of some of
3
.ll.
. ! | R
the students to whom golf instruction is provided, though the details of those contracts
are largely unknown to the Defend ants, but the Defendants deny the remaining
allegations of paragraph 14.
15. The Defend ants ad mit so much of paragraph 15 of the Complaint as
alleges that they have knowledge of the existence of the contracts, but the Defendants
d eny the remaining allegations of paragraph 15.
16. The allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint are d enied, and the
Defendants would show that, because of Mr. Goolsby's popularity with both stud ents
and parents during his previous employment, there was no reason for him or for
JGAHHI to solicit business, and they d id not d o so.
Further answering paragraph 16 of the Complaint, the Defend ants would show
that not only did they not "attempt to procure a breach, " but that no breach, in fact,
occurred because, upon information and belief, the parents of all students of JGAHHI
who had formerly been students at IJGA, fully performed their financial obligations to
IJGA and/or IJGT.
17. The allegations of paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Complaint are d enied.
18. The allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint are d enied in the same
manner and to the same extent as is set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 of this
Answer.
19. The allegations of paragraph 21 of the Complaint, including, without
limitation, those set forth in subparagraphs A, B and C, are d enied .
20. The allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint are d enied.
4
.l|lI|1i
l . .IL -
21. The allegations of paragraph 23 of the Complaint are denied in the same
manner and to the same extent as is set forh in paragraphs 1 through 20 of this
Answer.
22. The allegations of paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the Complaint are d enied .
23. The allegations of paragraph 27 of the Complaint are d enied in the same
manner and to the same extent as is set forth in paragraphs 1 through 22 of this
Answer.
24. The allegations of paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of the Complaint are denied,
and the Defendants would furher show that, at the time Mr. Goolsby left his previous
employment no "contact lists for current students and their parents" were in existence.
25. The allegations of paragraph 32 of the Complaint are d enied in the same
manner and to the same extent as is set forh in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this
Answer.
26. The allegations of paragraphs 33 and 34 of the Complaint are denied.
27. The allegations of paragraph 35 of this Complaint are d enied in the same
manner and to the same extent as is set forth in paragraphs 1 through 26 of this
Answer.
28. The allegations of paragraph 36 of the Complaint are denied, and the
Defend ants would show that an order purporting to enjoin "spreading falsehoods" would
amount, as a matter of law, to an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments.
29. The allegations of paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Complaint are denied.
5
~

//
FOR A SECOND DEFENSE
(Lack of Capacity)
/
'i

// 30. Both Junior Sports Corporation, Inc., and IJGT lack the capacity to pursue
/I

s action pursuant to Rule 17(b), SCRCP, for the reasons specified in paragraphs 2
1

/
and 3 above, which are adopted and by express reference made a part of this Second
f Defense.
FOR A THIRD DEFENSE
(No Real Party in Interest)
31. The allegations of paragraphs 2, 3 and 30 above are hereby adopted and
by express reference made a part of this Third Defense.
32. This action is not being prosecuted in the name of the real pary in interest
in violation of Rule 17(a), SCRCP, and it should be stayed for a reasonable time to
allow joinder of that party. In the absence of such joinder the action should be
dismissed. /d.
FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE
(Failure to Join Necessary Pary)
33. The allegations of paragraphs 2, 3, 30, 31 and 32 above are hereby
adopted and by express reference made a part of this Fourth Defense.
34. The actual, previous employer of Mr. Goolsby should be joined as a pary
plaintiff under Rule 19(a), SCRCP, and, failing in that, this action should be dismissed.
FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
35. The following claims fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action under Rule 12(b) (6), SCRCP:
6
[! |B l M W
(a) The First Cause of Action (for violation of S.C. Code Ann. 39-8-20)
because no trade secret has even been suggested in that claim, let alone identified.
(b) The Second Cause of Action (for interference with one or more contracts)
because no allegation is made that either Defendant actually procured the breach of a
contract, which is the test under South Carolina law.
(c) The Fifh Cause of Action (for Conversion) because no demand for the
return of the as yet unidentified property has been alleged, and neither has any
rationale for failing to make such a demand.
(d) The Sixth Cause of Action (for civil conspiracy) because, (i) as a matter of
law, an agent and his principal cannot, by themselves, engage in a conspiracy; and (ii)
no special damage has been pleaded.
(e) The Seventh Cause of Action (for a temporary and permanent injunction)
because the injunctive relief sought amounts to a prior restraint which, as a matter of
law, is prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
FOR A SIXTH DEFENSE
(Waiver)
36. As used herein below, the word "Plaintif" shall mean and refer to the
actual, previous employer of Mr. Goolsby, who, at the time of Mr. Goolsby's
employment, declined to put Mr. Goolsby under contract despite Mr. Goolsby's request
that the Plaintiff do so.
37. All of the international students now attending JGAHHI that formerly
received their instruction from the Plaintif were allowed to transfer their 1-20 Student
7
' .
Visas from their former sponsor, Heritage Academy, which is owned by the Plaintif, to a
new one, Hilton Head Preparatory School.
38. In order for the transfers to be approved, the Plaintif had to confirm i n
writing that the parents of each transferring student had fulfilled all of their contract
obligations to the Plaintif.
39. The Plaintif has voluntarily relinquished known rights and is barred from
recovery by the doctrine of waiver.
FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE
(Supervening Cause)
40. If the Plaintif's enrollment has declined, that decline began well before the
employment of Mr. Goolsby was terminated by the Plaintif.
41. Any decline in enrollment was and is the direct and proximate result of the
following events and conditions.
(a) Competition from other golf instruction schools, both locally and in the
state of Florida; and
(b) Disillusionment by the parents of and the students now or formerly taught
by the Plaintif because of a lack of certified coaches, despite the Plaintiff's
representations to the contrary, a lack of clean and healthy living conditions, financial
improprieties in the use of credit cards made available for students' use by their parents,
excessive charges, lack of educational progress, and the failure to place a suficient
number of students in college.
8
. l .1
WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint, the Defendants, David D.
Goolsby and Junior Golf Academy of Hilton Head, Inc. , request that the Court inquire
into the facts and matters alleged herein; and
(a)
Dismiss the Complaint of the Plaintiff; or
(b) Enter judgment with respect to each cause of action, if any, set forth in the
Complaint in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff; and
(c) Tax all costs of this action against the Plaintif.
November 22, 2013
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina.
Respectf ly bmitted,

By:
==========
9
Robert V. Mathison, Jr.
Attorney for the Defendants
David D. Goolsby and Junior Golf
Academy of Hilton Head, Inc.
MATHISON & MATHISON
Post Ofice Box 5271
Hilton Head Island
South Carolina 29938-5271
Telephone
:
(843) 785-6503
Email: rmathlaw@aol.com
"11'1'1'11
l
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
)
)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
(Case No. 2013-CP-07-02589)
COUNTY OF BEAUFORT
JUNIOR SPORTS CORPORATION,
INC.,
Plaintif,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DAVID GOOLSBY and JUNIOR )
GOLF ACADEMY OF HILTON HEAD, )
INC., )
Defendants.
)
)
)
Certificate of Mailing
'`
-J
.
I, Robert V. Mathison, Jr., hereby certify that on November 22, 2013/riled ad
served by mail the original and a copy of the Answer to the Complaint by the
Defendants David D. Goolsby and Junior Golf Academy of Hilton Head, Inc, by
depositing same, with suficient first-class postage prepaid, at the United States Post
Ofice located at Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, addressed as follows:
The Honorable Jerri Ann Roseneau
Clerk of Cour for Beaufort County
Post Ofice Box 1128
Beaufort, SC 29901
Terry A. Finger, Esquire
Finger & Fraser, PA
Post Ofice Box 24005
Hilton Head Island, SC 29928- 5
Rober V. Mathison, Jr.
Attorney for the Defendants
David D. Goolsby and Junior Golf
Academy of Hilton Head, Inc.
''l'