federal law | Horse Racing Free Tips

The two defendants facing allegations of civil extortion and defamation in a federal lawsuit initiated by trainer Bob Baffert and his incorporated racing stable are contending that the case should be dismissed because “Baffert is the rare, libel-proof plaintiff given his notorious history in the horse racing industry,” according to a discovery plan filed jointly by lawyers for all sides in United States District Court (Southern District of California) Jan. 2.

Baffert's legal team, however, is banking that dismissal won't happen, and it told the court in the same document that it is anticipating the case should be able to be brought before a jury a little more than a year after it was first initiated.

“This matter should be ready for trial approximately in November of 2024,” Baffert's counsel wrote in the joint discovery plan. “Plaintiffs estimate that between five and eight days will be needed for trial.”

Back on Sept. 27, Baffert filed a suit against two New Jersey residents, Justin Wunderler and Daniel DiCorcia, that asked for compensatory damages in excess of $75,000, plus an award of punitive damages “to deter similar conduct by Defendants and others” after purportedly suffering “mental anguish, anxiety, and duress Defendants have caused by virtue of their repeated threats to Baffert's business and family by means of their unlawful statements.”

The alleged extortion and defamation took the form of repeated social media postings.

Among them, according to Baffert's complaint, were postings written by Wunderler asking “his followers to bring dangerous objects to hurl at Baffert and his family” at the 2023 GI Belmont S., and another in which Wunderler posted “a picture of Baffert's house in California.”

As Baffert's complaint put it, “This lawsuit is the response to a series of escalating threats and criminal conduct by Defendants Justin Wunderler and Daniel DiCorcia against Plaintiffs Bob Baffert and his family. Over the past several months, Defendants have urged others to engage in violent behavior toward Baffert and his family, baselessly accused Baffert of criminal conduct, and attempted to extort Baffert and his family under threats to his business, reputation, and occupational license.”

Both defendants have denied the allegations and are seeking a dismissal of the case.

Wunderler, however, did not initially file a timely legal response after being served with his summons.

On Dec. 4, one of Baffert's attorneys, Clark Brewster, asked the court to enter a default judgment against Wunderler for failing to respond.

Wunderler subsequently obtained a lawyer and an answer was filed Dec. 15. The judge denied the motion for default judgment on Dec. 19 and ordered the case to proceed.

Next up is an “early neutral evaluation” conference Jan. 8 that is designed to serve as a form of alternate dispute resolution, although neither party mentioned the likelihood of a settlement in the Jan. 2 joint filing.

Baffert's legal team, in Tuesday's joint plan, brought up some anticipated issues relating to discovery, allegedly because “One or more defendants in this matter have posted on social media regarding their intent to seek discovery on matters beyond the scope of the Complaint.”

Discovery is the formal legal process by which the parties in a case exchange information in advance about witnesses and evidence that each side intends to present.

The filing by Baffert's lawyers continued: “This case is about Defendants' allegations of blood doping, the use of EPO, and their conspiracy to extort Mr. Baffert. Inquiries outside of these topics will be irrelevant except to the extent necessary to resolve issues regarding Mr. Baffert's reputation.”

The defendants were given an opportunity in the joint filing to give their positions on the topic of anticipated discovery issues.

“DiCorcia has nothing to add and no response to the amorphous comment above,” the joint filing stated.

“Wunderler agrees to adhere to the scope and limits of discovery [and] will adhere to any Court order regarding discovery,” the joint filing stated.

The post Facing Extortion Allegations, Defendants in Defamation Lawsuit Contend ‘Baffert is the Rare Libel-Proof Plaintiff’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Federal attorneys want the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (HBPA)'s anti-constitutionality lawsuit thrown out of court, arguing that the HBPA's allegations of injury regarding the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) “are entirely threadbare” because no rules, regulations or fees have been established by the not-yet-in-effect regulatory body.

“Plaintiffs jumped the gun bringing this constitutional challenge,” the federal government stated in an Apr. 30 motion to dismiss filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. “Their complaint questions the validity of a law that currently subjects them to no obligation or penalty.”

The filing continued: “Neither the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) nor the [HISA] Authority have even proposed rules that they could endeavor to enact. There has been no proposal for rules regarding permissible and impermissible drugs; no proposal for rules regarding racetrack safety; and no proposals for rules regarding enforcement procedures or penalties…There has not even been a rule crafted to govern how the Authority is to 'propose' any rules to the FTC–which is all fitting, given that HISA is only four months old.”

In March, the HBPA, with the support of 12 of its state chapters, sued 11 individuals in connection with their official capacities related to the FTC and HISA's not-yet-active Authority. The HBPA claimed that the law, “unconstitutionally delegates to a private entity the legislative authority to regulate” the sport, and asked the court to “declare HISA unconstitutional and preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing and enforcing the law.”

The feds have responded that the HBPA has it wrong: The bill that got signed into law in December “merely creates a framework for the FTC, with the subordinate aid of the 'private, independent, self-regulatory, nonprofit' HISA Authority to enact future standards and rules.

“Congress established this framework because it concluded that, in the absence of independent national oversight and uniform drug and safety standards, the horseracing industry was failing to adequately protect its participants,” the filing stated.

“But, recognizing that rulemaking in a new area should proceed carefully and with proper deliberation, Congress provided that no regulations governing the conduct of horseracing can take effect before July 1, 2022. Regulations the FTC enacts under HISA may (or may not) impact Plaintiffs in the future. But there is not even a proposed regulation for Plaintiffs to complain about today.”

The filing continued: “Plaintiffs thus fail the most basic requirement for invoking this Court's jurisdiction: they cannot establish that they have been harmed in any concrete way by the law they protest. Nor can Plaintiffs establish that their challenges to the statute are ripe for judicial review.

“Adjudicating the merits of Plaintiffs' legal claims now would require the Court to evaluate HISA's framework in the abstract, unaided by any concrete facts or history of agency action. There is no justification for the Court treading this path under any circumstances, and it is doubly improper when Plaintiffs are asking this Court to resolve constitutional claims.”

The federal attorneys also argued that the HBPA's suit fails to support its central claim that HISA unlawfully delegates legislative power to the FTC and the private Authority.

“HISA is far more detailed than the statutory schemes that the Supreme Court has sustained against delegation challenges over the past 80 years,” the filing stated. “And both the Supreme

Court and courts of appeals around the country have repeatedly confirmed that private entities can properly provide extensive assistance to federal agencies, so long as those agencies retain

final decision-making authority and control, as the FTC does here.”

The feds asked the judge to toss out the lawsuit, either on the grounds of the alleged lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for the HBPA's supposed failure to state a claim.

“At best, Plaintiffs' complaint could be read to suggest that the Plaintiffs might be subject to some rules they dislike in the future…The Plaintiffs' challenge at this point therefore amounts to nothing more than a request for an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of HISA. This Court is not empowered to provide that, “The Plaintiffs may be able to show a concrete injury from HISA on some future occasion when a specific rule affects their interests,” the filing summed up. “Until then, however, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain their claims.”

The post Feds: HBPA ‘Jumped the Gun’ in HISA Lawsuit appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post