What's more, what is the basis for the suit? "I am not happy to have to pay this" is not a winning argument. You need "they were not allowed to do this" and it appears the language that limited any SA without a vote is no longer part of the governing documents.
Instead, I think there are just two choices. One: this SA is not worth paying, in which case don't pay it and ignore them. Two: this SA is worth paying, in which case pay it and continue. Based on what (little) I know, I wouldn't pay it, as (a) this is unlikely to be the last one and (b) there is nothing to hold on to for an eventual liquidation because it is a membership not owned property. No upside that I can see, unless like some others I had an upcoming booked vacation that I thought was worth an extra $1K to take.