Skip to main content


Thomas v. Little League Baseball, Pa. No. 21-00260 (C.P. Lycoming May 11, 2022) (Linhardt, J.) Waverly Little League in NY banned a player.  The plaintiff then sued Little League International.  The court dismissed the matter, saying that there was no agency relationship and that none of the rules of Little League International would have applied to the plaintiffs.  There is simply not a sufficient connection to justify dragging Defendant, a corporation coordinating local youth baseball leagues across the country and the world, into a dispute between the autonomously-acting board members of a local little league organization (that is located not just outside of this Court’s jurisdiction but outside of its state) and a community member who wishes to attend that local league’s games. This is not a matter that Defendant controls but has delegated to Waverly Little League to enforce Defendant’s wishes; rather, Waverly Little League’s decision to ban Plaintiff was an autonomous one distinct from the marketing and coordination provided by Defendant. Defendant’s Preliminary Objections are SUSTAINED. Because the Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to a demurrer as a matter of law, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice.