Amon's ruling indicated that the pre-suspension hearing fulfills Baffert's right to due process.

“NYRA is gratified by Judge Amon's decision to dismiss Mr. Baffert's suit in its entirety,” Patrick McKenna, a spokesman for NYRA, told DRF. “As we have said throughout this process, NYRA's focus in this matter is protecting the integrity of the sport of Thoroughbred racing in New York.”

Amon's ruling also states that Baffert will be able to pursue a separate judicial review of a suspension after the hearing is completed.

“Whether NYRA is a biased agency and whether suspension is a 'fait accompli' will certainly be clearer after the hearing has run its course and NYRA has decided to suspend Baffert,” Amon wrote.

NYRA had notified Baffert ahead of the Belmont Stakes that it was suspending his ability to enter horses in races or have stall space at its racetracks due to his recent history of medication violations (five over a one-year period), the conflicting statements he provided to media around the Medina Spirit scandal, and Churchill Downs' suspension of the trainer.

Amon determined that NYRA's suspension of Baffert should not have taken place without some sort of hearing allowing him to address the organization's accusations against him. Although NYRA was asserting its private property rights in the case, Amon said the organization is closely entwined enough with the state that its suspension of Baffert constituted a state action, thereby requiring due process.

NYRA issued a statement of charges against Baffert and fellow trainer Marcus Vitali on Sept. 10.

The upcoming hearing process, laid out by NYRA in its official statement on Sept. 10, is not expected to be brief. O. Peter Sherwood, the retired New York State Supreme Court justice, will serve as a NYRA-appointed hearing officer. The hearing may last several days, and Sherwood is not required to issue his post-hearing report with recommendations within a specific period of time.

Once that report has been issued, a panel will review it and issue a final decision within 10 days

Read more at the Daily Racing Form.

The post NYRA’s Pre-Suspension Hearing Against Bob Baffert To Begin Monday; Judge Dismisses Trainer’s Lawsuit appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Chief among the reasons that United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) Carol Bagley Amon dismissed the amended complaint were that some of Baffert's claims were not yet “ripe” for a federal court to rule upon them because Baffert has yet to have the NYRA exclusionary hearing that is scheduled to begin Monday, Jan. 24.

Amon also wrote that Baffert could not substantiate his claim that NYRA's actions against him amounted to wrongful interference with his business relationships–such as owners who might have moved horses out of his care–because NYRA's actions were directed at Baffert, and not his clients.

“Baffert fails to explain how a state actor's truthful claims reporting a suspension are criminal or independently tortious,” Amon wrote. “Even though the underlying suspension was allegedly unlawfully undertaken, NYRA's statements about that suspension were entirely accurate and do not constitute a crime or tort.”

Asked via email to comment on the Jan. 21 court order on his client's behalf, Baffert's attorney, W. Craig Robertson III, wrote the following:

“The primary purpose of the federal court action was to obtain an injunction prohibiting NYRA [from] suspending Mr. Baffert without due process of law. We were successful in that regard and Judge Amon issued such an injunction [back in July that preliminarily lifted his suspension]–which she has now made permanent.

“As it pertains to our claims related to the renewed efforts by NYRA to suspend Mr. Baffert, Judge Amon has instructed us that we need to go through that [Jan. 24 hearing] process to see if NYRA actually affords the due process it is legally obligated to provide.”

“While we are skeptical NYRA will do as required given its past conduct, we will go through the hearing as instructed by the Judge. Should NYRA not act fairly and in accordance with the law, we will have the right–and we will be prepared–to once again return to Court to seek justice,” Robertson concluded.

Patrick McKenna, NYRA's vice president of communications, countered with the following emailed statement:

“NYRA is gratified by Judge Amon's decision to dismiss Mr. Baffert's lawsuit in its entirety. As we have said throughout this process, NYRA's focus in this matter is protecting the integrity of the sport of Thoroughbred racing in New York. In furtherance of that goal, the NYRA administrative hearing will begin on Monday morning.”

NYRA had banished the seven-time GI Kentucky Derby-winning trainer 16 days after now-deceased Medina Spirit tested positive for an overage of betamethasone while winning the May 1, 2021, Derby. In the 12 months prior to Medina Spirit's positive, four other Baffert trainees also tested positive for medication overages, two of them in Grade I stakes.

On July 14, the court granted Baffert a preliminary injunction that allowed him to race at New York's premier tracks until his lawsuit got adjudicated in full.

In the wake of that decision, NYRA drafted a new set of procedures for holding hearings and issuing determinations designed to suspend licensees who engage in injurious conduct. On Sept. 10, NYRA then summoned Baffert to appear at an exclusion hearing now scheduled for Jan. 24.

Baffert first filed a motion asking the judge to hold NYRA in civil contempt for trying to schedule such a hearing and to stay the hearing itself. When those requests were denied, he amended his original complaint to try and keep the hearing process from moving forward.

That amended complaint was the subject of Amon's order on Friday.

By changing the injunction over Baffert's initial May suspension from “preliminary” to “permanent,” Amon wrote that the civil rights aspect of Baffert's initial complaint is now “fully resolved.”

That left five counts in the amended complaint to be adjudicated. Amon sided with NYRA by dismissing all of them.

NYRA had argued that one of the counts should have been dismissed related to a legal term called the “Younger abstention,” which is a doctrine that mandates federal courts must not hear cases involving federal issues already being decided at the state level.

“Younger abstention is appropriate here,” Amon wrote, noting that NYRA's upcoming administrative proceeding qualifies as a “civil enforcement” proceeding.”

“A Younger-eligible civil enforcement proceeding can be a proceeding or hearing in front of an agency or committee tribunal; it does not need to take place in state court…” Amon wrote.

“NYRA's administrative proceedings resemble criminal prosecutions in the important respects identified in [a precedent],” Amon wrote. “First, the purpose of the proceeding is to determine if Baffert should be sanctioned for alleged wrongdoing…”

“Second, NYRA initiated the proceedings as a state actor. Baffert argues that NYRA cannot call itself a state adjudicative body because it has previously argued that it is not a state actor. Notably, Baffert does not argue that NYRA is not a state actor, since any such argument would be fatal to his [civil rights] claim…”

“Third, NYRA's proceeding was preceded by an investigation that culminated in the filing of formal charges,” Amon wrote. “Baffert does not dispute that the Statement of Charges qualifies as formal charges. Instead, he argues that NYRA failed to conduct a satisfactory, independent investigation before bringing those charges. That argument is not persuasive.”

As for the “ripeness” issue, Amon wrote: “Courts considering prudential ripeness ask first 'whether an issue is fit for judicial decision' and second 'whether and to what extent the parties will endure hardship if decision is withheld.'

“Baffert alleges that proceeding with the hearing violates his due process rights. And as in [a precedent] it is not yet clear that the hearing will deprive Baffert of any property interest. Although Baffert argues that NYRA has targeted Baffert for disparate treatment and that the hearing presents a 'fait accompli' of suspension, the September 10th Letter does not suspend Baffert. Whether NYRA is a biased agency and whether suspension is a 'fait accompli' will certainly be clearer after the hearing has run its course and NYRA has decided whether to suspend Baffert.

Amon also wrote that Baffert did not successfully argue that dismissing his case would cause him significant harm.

“If having to participate in an ongoing administrative hearing counted as per se hardship, courts would routinely find claims ripe while administrative hearings are ongoing,” Amon wrote.

Baffert had argued that even the specter that he might be suspended from racing in New York had caused his business “significant injury.”

But Amon wrote that his amended complaint “does not include allegations that the [letter summoning him to a hearing] has injured his business.”

Amon added that, “Baffert alleges that one client [WinStar Farm] moved its horses because of the May suspension, and that other owners 'have indicated that they may have to move their horses away from Baffert if he cannot race in New York.'

“These allegations do not indicate that Baffert will suffer any business injury from the ongoing hearing now that his original suspension has been lifted. And Baffert has provided no

other evidence indicating an injury accruing from the specter of suspension,” Amon wrote.

Amon wrote that courts can't be expected to be constantly reviewing whether or not the “cloud of official investigation” harms someone's business, because reviewing every such claim of harm would disrupt the administrative process and add to “already overcrowded court dockets.”

The post Judge Dismisses Baffert’s Lawsuit Against NYRA appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Baffert's attorney Craig Robertson attempted to argue that NYRA only created rules and procedures for giving a Baffert hearing after the fact in an attempt to suspend Baffert for the same reasoning as it had in May. Amon dismissed that argument, interrupting Robertson several times to note that a hearing process for Baffert is legally separate from NYRA's enjoined May 17 attempt to suspend him.

“That suspension is no longer in effect,” she said. “I don't know how you can read that [injunction] order to say they cannot now proceed with a hearing. They're not seeking [to suspend him], they're simply seeking to give him a hearing. What was enjoined was the fact that they suspended him without a hearing … I didn't reach a merits decision as to [the suspension]. What I said was that your client was entitled, before someone decided to suspend him, to put forth his answers to all of the charges that they had brought. He can do that now.”

Robertson again tried to argue that NYRA was creating “ex post facto” rules for its original suspension, but Amon again interrupted to say, “No, they're not, because this is a whole new proceeding. You're missing the import of the court's original order … The lawsuit that you brought dealt with a suspension in May … This is an entirely different scenario.”

Robertson returned to his argument that the reasoning behind the scheduled hearing process and potential resulting suspension for Baffert is the same as it was for NYRA's initial attempt to suspend Baffert, to which Amon said, “What difference does that make? We're talking about contempt here. I did not make a ruling that their reasons were invalid in the last hearing, I said he should get a chance to answer [the charges] … They are giving him the opportunity to address all of this.”

Robertson then pivoted to criticizing the nature of NYRA's proposed due process hearing, saying, “They have said, 'Here is your due process, Mr. Baffert. You can have a hearing in front of a hearing officer we appoint. That hearing officer then makes recommendations to a panel that we appoint, and that [NYRA CEO] Mr. [David] O'Rourke appoints. And Mr. O'Rouke has already submitted multiple affidavits in this case in support of the suspension of Mr. Baffert. That panel that Mr. O'Rourke appoints then can do whatever they want, impose whatever penalty they want, and then you have no right of appeal.'”

Amon was more sympathetic to that argument but ultimately found it unrelated to the case in front of her, saying, “I understand your point on that … But I don't know that at this point in time, I [can] prejudge something that hasn't happened yet, particularly in the context of this lawsuit, which pertains to the May 17 suspension, not something that may happen in the future.”

Robertson then argued that NYRA had no rule on the books justifying a suspension for offenses occurring outside of New York, saying “they've now made that rule up,” but Amon shot that down as well, saying, “That's a different lawsuit. That's not this lawsuit.”

Chiming in for the first time, NYRA attorney Henry Greenberg said, “A contempt proceeding is not an appropriate vehicle to raise issues, either procedural or substantive, [about] the hearing. Those arguments should be raised before the hearing officer, retired [New York State] Supreme Court Justice Peter Sherwood, a distinguished jurist, who the Court can be confident and certain will provide a fair, impartial, neutral proceeding for opposing counsel. Those arguments, all of which we address in our paper on the merits, respectfully, are not appropriately heard [here].”

Greenberg then referenced Robertson's opening statement that he did not want to be in court Tuesday but was left with no choice due to NYRA's actions, and said that, to the contrary, NYRA was providing precisely what the earlier injunction directed them to.

“When opposing counsel says he had no choice but to bring this proceeding … In fact, what NYRA is doing today by this administrative proceeding is providing exactly–exactly–what he argued he was entitled to. When [the] July 14 order from the Court was issued, your Honor, NYRA took every word, every syllable. It provided–although that wasn't the intent, perhaps–it provided us guidance about how we could establish a due process mechanism that would allow us to fairly provide the accused to tell their side of the story.”

NYRA also pushed back against the notion that it was creating a retroactive process simply to enforce its original suspension against Baffert, noting that it has also scheduled hearings and issued charges for disgraced trainer Marcus Vitali.

“The problems that we are addressing are not limited to Mr. Baffert,” Greenberg said. “On the same day that we brought the proceeding against Mr. Baffert, we brought it against another trainer, a gentleman by the name of Marcus Vitali, and selected a retired Court of Appeals judge to preside over the proceeding … I leave the Court with the thought that NYRA has taken to heart the guidance and analysis contained in your decision, is committing to this Court that our faithfulness and fidelity to due process will be observed. Mr. Baffert will be given a punctilious compliance with a due process hearing.”

As the proceeding wound down, Robertson left the door open to amending his complaint before disputing what he said was NYRA lumping Baffert in with Vitali.

“To the extent that the Court believes I need to amend my complaint, I would ask for leave to do that, number one,” he said. “Number two, I want to make sure the record is clear, comparing Mr. Baffert to Mr. Vitali is comparing apples to oranges. They have only brought a proceeding against Mr. Vitali to give them cover. Mr. Vitali has a history of 84 drug violations, animal cruelty charges, numerous license suspensions throughout the East Coast and in fact, at one point in time was charged with when investigators came to his barn, running to a refrigerator, grabbing a bubble-wrap bag out of a refrigerator and running off. To compare the two, it's not without import. It has no merit.”

Robertson concluded by saying of a potential future suspension of Baffert by NYRA, “It's the same suspension. The only thing that's changed is the date on the letterhead.” But Amon was unmoved.

“The plaintiff has not proved clearly and convincingly that the September statement of charges violates the July 14 order,” the judge said in her official ruling. “The plaintiff mischaracterizes that order as enjoining NYRA from suspending Baffert for the reasons set forth in the May 17 letter until the conclusion of this case. But the text of the July 14 order bars the defendant only from enforcing the May 17 suspension. It says nothing about the May 17 letter's reasoning … This is not a case in which the Sept. 10 statement of charges can be equated to the May 17 suspension, because there had been significant and material alterations. Unlike the summary suspension ordered in the May 17 letter, the Sept. 10 letter does not suspend Baffert without a hearing. Sept. 10 proceedings create a hearing to consider a possible suspension, not to implement one. And unlike the May 17 suspension, the Sept. 10 statement of charges brings with it a full hearing, evidentiary disclosures, the standard of proof, an impartial hearing officer [and a] right to appeal any decision by the hearing officer to a panel. As [NYRA] counsel has pointed out, contempt proceedings are not a proper vehicle to challenge later actions. So I'm going to deny the request for a stay at this point.”

NYRA was quick to issue a statement praising the decision. “Earlier today, Judge Carol Bagley Amon denied Mr. Baffert's motion seeking to hold NYRA in civil contempt and to stay the administrative hearing,” said Patrick McKenna, Senior Director of Communications for NYRA. “We are gratified by the court's decision allowing NYRA to move forward with its administrative hearing against Bob Baffert. The court found that NYRA's actions were consistent with both the letter and spirit of the July 14 order. NYRA's focus in this matter is protecting the integrity of the sport of Thoroughbred racing in accordance with the requirements of due process.”

Robertson said afterward, “I'm disappointed. But the injunction remains in place and Mr. Baffert is still able to race in New York. We will review the court's ruling and determine next steps.”

The post Judge Dismisses Baffert Contempt Claim Against NYRA appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The basis for the contempt allegation is NYRA's “failure to comply with the terms of the Court's July 14, 2021, Memorandum & Order enjoining it from enforcing its unlawful suspension of Baffert from New York racetracks.”

According to a Sept. 22 filing by Baffert's legal team, “NYRA seems to believe now that it can simply offer a sham hearing and get around the Court's ruling by creating rules after the fact.”

The seven-time GI Kentucky Derby-winning trainer with a history of highly publicized equine drug violations wants the court to issue an order “staying NYRA's renewed attempt to suspend him.”

Baffert is also requesting that the court “admonish NYRA for its behavior” and immediately order it to 1) Cease and desist from all conduct concerning or relating in any way to any suspension of Baffert until after the full conclusion of the case; 2) Order NYRA to pay a $5,000 fine for each day that it does not comply with the court's directives; 3) Reimburse Baffert for his attorneys' fees and court costs related to the new motion for contempt.

“Baffert's requests are reasonable given that NYRA's violations were plainly taken in bad faith,” the trainer's legal team wrote. “The Court has already warned NYRA concerning its efforts to suspend Baffert indefinitely and without due process of law. Clearly, and despite the existing injunction, NYRA believes it may nonetheless disregard any traditional constitutional safeguards and proceed however it wants. This behavior is precisely what Baffert's injunction was intended to halt.”

Patrick McKenna, NYRA's communications director, told TDN via email that all actions taken by NYRA have been in compliance with court orders.

Wednesday's filing is the latest salvo in the increasingly litigious saga that began May 17 when NYRA informed Baffert via letter that he was temporarily not welcome to stable or race at Saratoga Race Course, Belmont Park and Aqueduct Racetrack because of his string of recent equine drug positives.

NYRA's banishment came 16 days after the Baffert-trained Medina Spirit (Protonico) tested positive for betamethasone after the colt won the GI Kentucky Derby. Even though that case has still not resulted in any Kentucky ruling against Baffert, in the 12 months prior to Medina Spirit's positive, four other Baffert trainees also tested positive for banned substances, two of them in Grade I stakes.

Baffert responded June 14 by filing a civil complaint alleging that the NYRA ban violated his constitutional right to due process.

On July 14, the eve of the lucrative Saratoga season, Judge Carol Bagley Amon of United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) granted Baffert a preliminary injunction that allowed him to race at New York's premier tracks until the lawsuit was adjudicated.

But Amon also wrote in that ruling that “Baffert should have been given notice of all of the reasons that NYRA intended to suspend him….[The] benefits of providing notice and a pre-suspension hearing would likely have been substantial.”

In the wake of that ruling, NYRA has since drafted and distributed a new set of rules and procedures for holding hearings and issuing determinations designed to suspend licensees who engage in injurious conduct.

After those rules were made public, NYRA, on Sept. 10, wrote a letter summoning Baffert to appear at a video conference hearing Sept. 27. (Separately, NYRA had already moved for dismissal of the entire lawsuit).

On Tuesday, Baffert's legal team submitted a letter to the judge that gave notification that a contempt filing was imminent. That letter also asked for a pre-motion hearing on the subject.

But Judge Amon–as she has already done once in this case when NYRA's attorneys made a similar request for a pre-motion hearing on another matter–nixed the idea of adding another time-consuming appearance to the growing court docket in this case.

In a handwritten note penned atop the Sept. 21 letter from Baffert's legal team, Amon wrote that there would be no pre-motion conference, and that Baffert's attorneys instead had to file any “contempt” motion by 10 a.m. Sept. 22. NYRA then would have one week to respond to it.

The Wednesday filing emphasizes three key points for why the judge should find NYRA in contempt: “A) The Court's Order is clear and unambiguous…B) NYRA's recent actions are clear and convincing evidence of noncompliance with the Court's Order…C) NYRA's actions are not an attempt to comply in a reasonable manner.”

Baffert's filing also alleges that NYRA isn't even following the procedures outlined in its just-implemented hearing process.

“[NYRA's] newly created rules make clear that the notice of hearing is required to include the 'proposed penalty being sought.' Nothing in its 12-page letter and notice to Baffert makes any reference to the length of the suspension NYRA seeks to impose. The Court has already found this to be problematic…. This is the exact same thing NYRA seeks to do again-impose an indefinite suspension…All of these deficiencies in NYRA's newly implemented procedures indicate why due process is so important…

“Further, Baffert cannot reasonably expect a fair proceeding when NYRA controls the outcome of the hearing, refuses to tell him what punishment he may face and gives him no right to appeal. Due process plainly requires 'notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,'” the filing continues. “None of those basic components have been met here, which is the entire reason Baffert brought this action against NYRA in the first place.”

The post Baffert Alleges NYRA Violating Court Order in ‘Sham Hearing’ Attempt appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The three attorneys Baffert engaged for work on this case have billed him at rates between $450 and $975 hourly, according to court filings in which the lawyers detailed their costs. NYRA on Wednesday countered with its own court filing, which came in the form of a “notice of motion to dismiss” the original complaint. Essentially, that response was NYRA's way of telling Baffert's legal team that the case is not yet over.

According to a schedule that had been ordered back on July 22 by Judge Carol Bagley Amon of United States District Court (Eastern District of New York), NYRA had until Aug. 27 to “serve, but not file, its motion to dismiss.” Oral arguments for that motion aren't even scheduled until Nov. 16.

In a civil complaint filed by Baffert June 14, the seven-time GI Kentucky Derby-winning trainer had alleged that NYRA's banishment of him since May 17 over the issue of his repeated equine drug violations violates his constitutional right to due process.

On July 14, the eve of the lucrative Saratoga Race Course season, Amon granted Baffert a preliminary injunction, writing in her order, “I find that Baffert has established a likelihood of proving that NYRA's suspension constituted state action, and that the process by which it suspended him violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Yet Amon also wrote, “although NYRA's actions have functionally deprived Baffert of his trainer's license, NYRA has not formally suspended that license. In sum, it is not likely that Baffert will be able to prevail on his claim that NYRA had no legal authority to take the action that it did.”

In Tuesday's filing on behalf of Baffert, his attorneys wrote, “Baffert qualifies as a prevailing party in this suit because the Court entered a preliminary injunction against NYRA enjoining it from enforcing its indefinite suspension of Baffert from all of its thoroughbred racetracks…”

The filing continued: “Under any view of the case, Baffert has fully prevailed on all of his due process claims asserted under Section 1983….It further cannot be disputed that the Court's Opinion altered the legal relationship between the parties by nullifying NYRA's suspension of Baffert–he is no longer barred from participating in NYRA races and he has entered horses at Saratoga as a direct consequence of the Court's order. As a result, Baffert has essentially achieved his main objective in this litigation [and] the Court's preliminary injunction is to Baffert the functional equivalent of a final judgment on the merits with respect to his claims and relief sought.”

One of Baffert's attorneys, the Kentucky-based W. Craig Robertson, the lead counsel in the case, wrote in a declaration that accompanied the motion that he charged Baffert $475 hourly for his work, and that his hourly fee and those of his firm's associate attorneys ($255 and $220), plus a paralegal ($265), are “well within the range of typical fees charged in commercial litigation cases in this District.”

Another attorney retained by Baffert since the inception of the case, the New York-based Charles Michael, wrote in a separate declaration, “my $975 hourly rate is within the reasonable rate customarily charged by attorneys with comparable experience.”

A third attorney, the Oklahoma-based Clark Brewster, wrote that he billed $450 hourly since being retained July 3, and “the rate charged to Baffert is reasonable with respect to equine matters and the rates fall within the standard range for commercial and equine litigators.”

The post Baffert Seeks $162K in Legal Fees from NYRA appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The TDN asked Liebman to take a deep dive into the ruling handed down last week by Judge Carol Bagley Amon of the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York that granted Baffert an injunction that will allow him to run horses at the Saratoga meet.

TDN: Baffert got the preliminary injunction he sought that allows him, for now, to race in Saratoga. That was because the judge ruled that Baffert's due process rights had been violated. But NYRA also won when it comes to an important point. The judge ruled that NYRA does in fact have the right to exclude someone, which they may ultimately do with Baffert once he has had a hearing. So which side was the winner and which side the loser?

BL: Baffert was the clear winner here. The only real point he lost on was on NYRA's power to exclude. And I'm not sure if (Baffert's legal team) was really serious about that issue. On all other issues, the judge clearly ruled for Baffert. Other than the power to exclude, everything in this decision could have been written by Baffert's attorneys. Really, everything. It's as if the judge discounted everything that NYRA put in. It was unnecessarily anti-NYRA.

TDN: As already mentioned, the judge made it clear that NYRA does have the right to exclude Baffert, which very well could eventually happen. How, then, is it that Baffert was “the clear winner?” Why isn't the validation of NYRA's right to exclude a bigger deal than you make it out to be?

BL: It was generally assumed all along that NYRA and all the state's racetracks have the power to exclude licensees. If NYRA follows the judge's decision, the course is to hold an unbiased due process hearing on whether they should exclude Baffert. Once that is done they will have the right to exclude him.

TDN: The judge ruled that NYRA violated Baffert's due process rights because it did not give him a hearing before suspending him. Did NYRA make a strategic error by not giving him that hearing?

BL: The judge clearly thought so. It's very hard for me to sit back and judge what NYRA did or should have done. But the judge clearly thought they would have been within their rights to have given him a hearing and that they would have been much better off to have given him a hearing before they made a decision to exclude him.

TDN: At the hearing, NYRA's lawyers said that a decision would be made regarding the terms and lengths of Baffert's suspension following an Aug. 11 meeting of the Board of Directors. What's your take on that?

BL: That's not normally something the Board of Directors does. The Board of Directors' main job is approving the budget. It's not exactly a judicial body of any note. My assumption is that NYRA will likely hire one judge or a panel of hearing officers. You would expect distinguished people, perhaps former judges, and have them make the assessment. Then NYRA management would follow their assessment. You would think that's how it is going to play out. It's hard for me to imagine, although they raised this, that this is a decision that will be made by the Board of Directors. In something like this, a board of directors does not normally get involved.

TDN: Should NYRA eventually suspend Baffert, what can he do to fight back?

BL: I think they would follow the same procedures that were used to get the temporary injunction and go back to federal court. This time, I think they would follow the case of Dr. (Michael) Galvin. He was a veterinarian who got his NYRA exclusion overturned after arguing that the procedures used by NYRA were biased against him.

TDN: A big issue in this case was whether or not NYRA was a state actor. It was largely believed that if it was determined by the court that NYRA was affiliated with the state then there would be limits to what it could and could not do with Baffert vis a vis a privately owned racetrack. How did the court find on this matter?

BL: The court agreed that NYRA was a state actor and that was a huge deal. If the court found that NYRA was not a state actor then what it did would have clearly been ok. But the judge determined that NYRA was a state actor. It's a very contentions issue. I think the judge put her thumb on the scales in favor of state action. But it's always going to be a difficult issue.

TDN: Is that why, to date, Baffert hasn't taken any legal action to have the ban issued by Churchill Downs overturned? Obviously, Churchill is privately owned and not a state agency.

BL: I'm not sure if I can assess Baffert's lawyers' motivation, but Churchill is clearly a private company. The case law in Kentucky clearly gives the tracks there considerable power over licensees. The other part here is they have a bigger issue to deal with with Churchill Downs, which is the disqualification of Medina Spirit in the Derby. They might want to deal with the disqualification issue first before they challenge Churchill on the Baffert suspension.

TDN: Was the court's decision in any way a game-changer? What impact will it have on future decisions regarding due process and the right of racetracks to exclude someone?

BL: Because NYRA is so unique, you can't say this will have a huge impact on other jurisdictions and other racetracks. NYRA's unique circumstances make this a one off when it comes to other cases. What was odd to me was the judge's determination that Bob Baffert will be harmed so extensively if not allowed to race at Saratoga. That's at a track where he normally, over the last 10 years, has raced about five times a meet. On its face, banning Baffert from a track where he rarely appears doesn't seem to be irreparable harm. That's the one issue that I think might have an effect on other cases, that someone who might occasionally show up at a track can argue irreparable harm and get a temporary restraining order if they are banned.

TDN: The Jockey Club filed an amicus brief in support of NYRA. Did that have any impact?

BL: The main reference to the Jockey Club is in a footnote. There's only one other reference, on how over the past 10 years Baffert had never gone a year without racing at a NYRA track. From reading her decision, it doesn't appear as if the Jockey Club brief had much of an impact. It is minimally referred to in the decision.

TDN: Are there any other unanswered questions?

BL: One is whether or not NYRA will appeal (Judge Amon's decision). I don't know. Instead of doing that they can simply go ahead and give him a hearing. Another question is whether or not NYRA will give Baffert stall space? There was nothing in the ruling that covered that. There's an easy way around that. He can easily find some place to stable at off track. I don't think NYRA's exactly going to make Clare Court available to him.

The post Legal Expert Bennett Liebman on Who Won, Who Lost in Baffert Decision appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

NYRA notified Baffert ahead of the Belmont Stakes that it was suspending his ability to enter horses in races or have stall space at its racetracks due to his recent history of medication violations, the conflicting statements he provided to media around the Media Spirit scandal, and Churchill Downs' suspension of the trainer.

Amon determined that the exclusion of Baffert from the Saratoga meet caused him significant harm, particularly as he was able to demonstrate several owners had withdrawn horses from his stable or planned to, based on the inability to start them in races there. She pointed out that the organization's suspension of Baffert had no time limit on it and was left open-ended with a final suspension length potentially coming some time after Aug. 11.

Although NYRA was asserting its private property rights in the case, Amon said the organization is closely entwined enough with the state that its suspension of Baffert constituted a state action, thereby requiring due process.

As to Baffert's history of recent drug violations in other states, Amon pointed out that NYRA has not taken similar actions against other trainers with similar records.

“…As uncontested data show, NYRA has permitted numerous trainers to race at NYRA this season who have medication violation histories comparable or more serious than Baffert's,” the ruling read. “These data belie NYRA's claim that integrity or safety demand the exclusion of someone with a violation record like Baffert's.”

Amon concluded that Baffert was entitled to notice and a pre-suspension hearing from NYRA or, in lieu of that, a prompt post-suspension hearing, although the organization did suggest it would allow the trainer to submit written arguments after informing him of the suspension.

“Numerous rules and regulations already safeguard the interests NYRA argues for here, and enjoining this suspension of Baffert will not prevent the continued enforcement of those rules,” Amon wrote. “The hardships that Baffert would suffer absent an injunction weigh heavily on the other side of the scale. The suspension is indefinite, and NYRA concedes at most that Baffert's claims might 'be decided within the year.' But the 2021 Saratoga meet is a one-time opportunity.

“…I am sensitive to NYRA's concerns about Baffert's involvement in the events surrounding Medina Spirit's Kentucky Derby performance, and the fear that history might repeat itself in New York. But for the reasons stated, the actual and substantial harm that Baffert will suffer absent an injunction outweighs the speculative harms that NYRA raises.”

Read the ruling here.

The post Baffert Prevails In Suit Over NYRA Suspension appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Baffert filed suit against NYRA on June 14, nearly a month after the racing association notified the Hall of Fame trainer that he was temporarily banned from racing or stabling at NYRA tracks while the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission conducts its investigation into the post-race drug positive for Baffert-trained Medina Spirit, who crossed the finish line first in the May 1 Kentucky Derby. Baffert is seeking a temporary and permanent injunction against the ban.

As defendant in the case, NYRA filed a memorandum of law on June 30 in opposition to Baffert's motion for preliminary injunction. The Jockey Club filed a brief on that same date as amicus curiae, or friend of the court, claiming that its role as keeper of the Stud Book gives it a “unique interest in ensuring that when Thoroughbreds enter the breeding shed (where they determine the future of the breed through progeny), they do so with records uninfluenced by the effects of medication.”

On July 7, attorneys for Baffert filed their own memorandum of law, which consisted of 434 pages and included an affidavit from the trainer. In the memo, Baffert's attorneys allege that NYRA has “vindictively” targeted the trainer utilizing “hypocrisy” and “backdoor” tactics. The filing also zeroes in on two legal arguments: that the ban violates the trainer's right to due process, and that NYRA has no authority to issue a ban.

Read more at bloodhorse.com.

Additional stories about Baffert's Kentucky Derby positive and ensuing legal battles can be found here.

The post Judge Delays Ruling On Baffert’s Lawsuit Against NYRA appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

A one-page letter filed on Friday revealed five names: “Gavin Murphy of SF Bloodstock; Jack Wolf of Starlight Racing; Peter Fluor of Speedway Stable; Sol Kumin of Madaket Stables; and George Bolton.”

Judge Amon issued the order to reveal names of owners considering leaving Baffert's stable in response to the New York Racing Association's motion to strike the trainer's affidavit from the record.

Baffert filed suit against NYRA on June 14, nearly a month after the racing association notified the Hall of Fame trainer that he was temporarily banned from racing or stabling at NYRA tracks while the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission conducts its investigation into the post-race drug positive for Baffert-trained Medina Spirit, who crossed the finish line first in the May 1 Kentucky Derby. Baffert is seeking a temporary and permanent injunction against the ban.

As defendant in the case, NYRA filed a memorandum of law on June 30 in opposition to Baffert's motion for preliminary injunction. The Jockey Club filed a brief on that same date as amicus curiae, or friend of the court, claiming that its role as keeper of the Stud Book gives it a “unique interest in ensuring that when Thoroughbreds enter the breeding shed (where they determine the future of the breed through progeny), they do so with records uninfluenced by the effects of medication.”

On July 7, attorneys for Baffert filed their own memorandum of law, which consisted of 434 pages and included an affidavit from the trainer. In the memo, Baffert's attorneys allege that NYRA has “vindictively” targeted the trainer utilizing “hypocrisy” and “backdoor” tactics. The filing also zeroes in on two legal arguments: that the ban violates the trainer's right to due process, and that NYRA has no authority to issue a ban.

That same filing also details the exodus of horses owned by WinStar Farm from Baffert's stable as an example of the type of harm that the ban will cause to the trainer's livelihood.

Read more at the Thoroughbred Daily News.

Additional stories about Baffert's Kentucky Derby positive and ensuing legal battles, listed in order from most recent to the original story:

• Baffert Attorneys: 'It Does Not Serve The Integrity Of Horse Racing To Suspend First And Ask Questions Later'
• NYRA: Baffert Ban Necessary To Protect Horses, Riders And Ensure Integrity
• Baffert Vs. NYRA: The Jockey Club Asks To Weigh In On 'Deleterious Effects Of Improper Drug Use'
• Report: Baffert Trainees Have The Highest Death Rate In California
• Baffert Files New York Lawsuit Claiming NYRA Has No Legal Authority For Suspension
• Baffert, Zedan File Suit Against Kentucky Commission Over Extra Testing In Medina Spirit Saga
• 'Reckless Practices,' 'Repeated Failures': Churchill Downs Suspends Bob Baffert For Two Years
• Baffert The Center Of Two More Civil Suits In Federal Court In Medina Spirit Case
• California Horse Racing Board Will Not Suspend Baffert's License Without Due Process
• Baffert Handed Temporary Suspension From NYRA Tracks
• Preakness Saturday Statement From Baffert: I Am 'Truly Sorry' For Handling Of Medina Spirit Scandal
• Horseplayers Sue Baffert, Zedan Racing Over Medina Spirit Drug Test
• Show Us The Paper, Bob: Records To Back Up Baffert's Story Remain A Matter Of Trust
• Raising The Bar? Hore's Advisory Role With Baffert 'Did Not Materialize As Intended'
• Baffert: Anti-Fungal Ointment Could Be Source Of Betamethasone Positive In Medina Spirit
• Baffert's Attorney Prepared To File Temporary Restraining Order Allowing Medina Spirit To Enter Preakness
• Churchill Downs Immediately Suspends Baffert From Entering Horses
• Baffert: Kentucky Derby Winner Medina Spirit Tests Positive For Betamethasone

The post Five Owners On The Verge Of Leaving Bob Baffert Over NYRA Ban, Legal Filing Reveals appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

NYRA's attorney, Henry Greenberg, argued that the reply included new information that the NYRA did not have time to investigate and that the entire filing or the affidavit should be stricken or disregarded.

NYRA informed Baffert on May 17 after Medina Spirit's Derby positive for Betamethasone became public that he was temporarily not welcome to stable or race at Aqueduct, Belmont or Saratoga.

On June 14, Baffert filed a civil complaint against NYRA, alleging that the association's ban violates his Fourteenth Amendment constitutional right to due process.

On June 30, NYRA filed a 236-page memorandum in opposition to granting Baffert an injunction. Baffert's attorneys filed their 434-page reply on Wednesday.

On a conference call at 2:30 p.m. Thursday, Judge Carol Bagley Amon ruled that all of the arguments and exhibits in Baffert's July 7 filing were admissible.

On the call, Greenberg told the judge that the filing of the paper was a “classic sandbag” on the part of Baffert's attorneys.

“The moment we saw the plaintiff's papers, especially the plaintiff's affidavit, we were shocked and disturbed,” Greenberg told the judge. “Because frankly, the plaintiff's submission was the most abusive use of a reply submission that I have ever seen.”

Greenberg argued that many of the claims made in the filing were not in reply to NYRA's response, nor were they substantiated. As an example, he cited the well-documented loss by Baffert of several top WinStar horses.

The Baffert filing details how WinStar had moved its horses to other trainers as a result of the NYRA ban.

“As for harms that have already occurred as a result of NYRA's ban, one of Baffert's major clients, WinStar Farm (“WinStar”) has moved all of its horses to other trainers. This included significant thoroughbreds LIFE IS GOOD (this year's Kentucky Derby favorite before he suffered a minor injury) and COUNTRY GRAMMER (Grade I winner of the Hollywood Cup and an early favorite for this year's Breeders' Cup Classic). This loss is substantial to Baffert, not only be because of the quality of the horses he lost, but because he has successfully trained many horses owned by WinStar, including recent Triple Crown winner JUSTIFY. WinStar's CEO, Elliott Walden, has publicly stated that he pulled these horse from Baffert partially due to NYRA's suspension because Baffert's current ability to enter horses in prestigious races is `limited.'”

The filing includes a copy of several stories from industry press detailing the incident and quoting Walden.

But Greenberg argued, “First of all, we have no idea if that's true or not. Second of all, WinStar is a corporation, not a person. Third of all, it's hearsay. Fourth of all, it's conclusive.”

“Who said these things?” Greenberg asked.

But Baffert's attorney Craig Robertson pointed out that Walden was indeed named in the filing, but was quoted in press clippings that were also provided. The TDN covered the story on June 24.

In the story, it quotes a text to the media from Walden which says, “The plan is to ship to Todd Pletcher in the coming weeks with a possibility of running in New York later this year. With the ban on Bob in Kentucky and New York right now, our opportunities are limited. We will continue to evaluate the situation with Bob and appreciate everything he has done with Life is Good.”

“They said Mr. Baffert has not given any specifics about horses who have been removed from his care, and that that was an important component,” Robertson said. “And so, in response to that, we drafted our reply and we addressed those specific points. They allege that we hadn't met our burden in response, which is exactly what we're allowed to do. We address the importance of New York racing to Mr. Baffert, and we address the specifics that they were claiming that were missing.”

Judge Amon said that while she hadn't expected to rule on any motions in the conference call, she was now being called upon to do so.

“There has been a motion to strike the affidavit of Mr. Baffert. Based on what I have heard today in this conference, I'm going to deny the motion to strike the affidavit,” she said.

She also recommended that Baffert be in court Monday in case he were called upon to testify to settle any disputes. She asked Robertson if Baffert were asked to testify that it was Walden who had talked to Baffert, would he be able to say that Walden had told him that?

“Yes, your honor,” said Robertson.

Robertson said that he would also provide the judge with other owners' names for whom Baffert had lost horses due to the NYRA ban by noon tomorrow.

The post Judge Says Baffert Reply is Admissible appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post