Judge Carol Bagley Amon | Horse Racing Free Tips

Baffert Seeks $162K in Legal Fees from NYRA

Even though trainer Bob Baffert has secured only a preliminary injunction in his ongoing lawsuit against the New York Racing Association (NYRA) that allows him to race at New York's three major tracks pending the final resolution of the case, his attorneys filed a motion in federal court Aug. 25 seeking $162,086 in legal fees and expenses from NYRA based on the claim that Baffert is due that money as the “prevailing party.”

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

Legal Expert Bennett Liebman on Who Won, Who Lost in Baffert Decision

As a Government Lawyer in Residence at Albany Law School and an adjunct professor of law, attorney and educator, Bennett Liebman has long had his finger on the pulse when it come to racing's rules, regulations and laws. He has written extensively on the subjects of due process and whether or not racetracks have the right to exclude licensees, two key elements of Bob Baffert's lawsuit against NYRA in which he sought injunctive relief to have his suspension temporally overturned. For three years, the New Yorker was Deputy Secretary to the Governor for Gaming and Racing. For more than a decade, he was a member of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board.

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

Baffert Prevails In Suit Over NYRA Suspension

After hearing attorney arguments on July 12, a U.S. District judge has ruled in favor of trainer Bob Baffert's motion for a preliminary injunction against the New York Racing Association. Judge Carol Bagley Amon of the Eastern District of New York determined on July 14 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.

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

Judge Delays Ruling On Baffert’s Lawsuit Against NYRA

Judge Carol Bagley Amon declined to render a verdict during Monday's hearing in trainer Bob Baffert's civil case against the New York Racing Association, according to bloodhorse.com. Instead, the U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York judge plans to consider attorney statements from both sides before issuing her ruling at a later, unspecified date.

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.