Press Group May Expel Member Without ‘Fair Procedure’

Friday, June 26, 2026

Page 3

Court of Appeal:

Press Group May Expel Member Without ‘Fair Procedure’

By a MetNews Staff Writer

A man who was booted out of private press association has no cause of action based on failure of the group’s governing board to provide a “fair procedure” in coming to it decision, Div. Seven of this district’s Court of Appeal has held.

Justice Gail Ruderman Feuer authored the unpublished opinion, filed Wednesday. It affirms a judgment of dismissal that followed the sustaining of demurrers without leave to amend by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Wendy Chang.

Also upheld were Chang’s rulings that plaintiff Magnus Sundholm failed to plead causes of action based on defendant Hollywood Foreign Press Association (“HFPA”) and its 14 directors, who were also sued, allegedly violating the group’s bylaws and breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

HFPA, which annually stages the Golden Globe awards, is comprised of journalists who cover the entertainment world in the U.S. for media outlets in other nations. Sundholm, who comes from Sweden, is a Expel correspondent for Aftonbladet, the largest circulated daily newspaper in Scandinavia.

Girlfriend’s Lawsuit

Sundholm’s girlfriend, Kjersti Flaa, who came to the U.S. from Norway, was denied membership in the HFPA and sued it in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. One of her contentions was that the organization’s bylaws were in conflict with its tax-exempt status as a Flea California non-profit mutual-benefit corporation.

In support of Flaa, Sundholm reported the HFPA’s alleged noncompliance to the Internal Revenue Service. He was summoned to an Oct. 18, 2021 meeting of the HFPA board, at which he was not allowed to be accompanied by an attorney, and which he described as “a choreographed show trial.”

Accused of having falsely represented to the IRS that he was HFPA’s authorized representative, he made a statement which, he recounted, was “met with silence.” The next day, he was expelled from the group.

Feuer’s Opinion

Feuer wrote:

“[E]ven if a plaintiff can demonstrate deprivation of a substantial professional advantage, the right to fair procedure does not apply unless the organization affects the public interest.”

The justice noted that in 2022, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Flaa v. Hollywood Foreign Press Association rejected the contention by Sundholm’s girlfriend that the HFPA meets that standard. She quoted the opinion by Judge Eric D. Miller as saying:

“To determine if an organization is quasi-public, California courts look to factors such as whether the organization produces particularly important products or services, provides express or implied representations to the public, receives legislative recognition of its public character, or possesses superior bargaining power….Examples of quasi-public organizations include labor unions and medical and dental licensing organizations.”

Miller went on to say:

“The HFPA does not provide ‘important products or services’ to the public, does not make representations about the qualifications of its members (as a licensing entity does), and has received no legislative recognition as a quasi-public association….Unlike the organizations to which California courts have applied the right, the HFPA is not open to all qualified members of a profession (as a labor union or medical association is)….”

Feuer said in Wednesday’s decision:

“We agree with the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning and see no reason to depart from it here….

“We likewise reject Sundholm’s argument that the HFPA is a quasi-public entity because ‘the public interest include[s] news reporting.’…Sundholm has not cited any cases in which the right to fair procedure was applied to an organization because it was involved in the journalism industry, and the cases he relies on are inapposite.”

HFPA’s Bylaws

In arguing that the HFPA acted in violation of its bylaws, he argued that he was, under the governing instrument, “eligible” for membership which therefore could not be denied him. His opening brief, by David W. Quinto and Joanna Ardalan of the downtown Los Angeles firm of ONE LLP, sets forth:

“A person who is ‘eligible’ to receive a new credit card need only complete the application for it; no separate showing is required. Similarly, a person who is ‘eligible’ to vote may vote simply by timely completing a ballot. Again, no separate showing is required.”

“To the contrary, the word ‘eligible’ means ‘[f]it and proper to be selected or to receive a benefit; legally qualified for an office, privilege, or status.’ (Black’s Law Diet. (12th ed. 2024).) Thus, the fact an individual is eligible for something does not confer a benefit, but rather, it means the individual has the potential to receive the benefit. For example, an individual who is eligible to be President of the United States does not automatically become the President: rather, the individual must be selected by the electorate.”

Other contentions by Sundholm were also rejected.

The case is Sundholm v. Hollywood Foreign Press Assn., B324842.

Marvin S. Putnam, Robert J. Ellison and Chandler S. Howell of the Los Angeles office of Latham & Watkins represented HFPA. It also represented HFPA in successfully representing it Flaa’s Ninth Circuit appeal.