lawsuit | Horse Racing Free Tips

Report: Zedan Sues Churchill in Attempt to Force Track to Accept Baffert Entries

According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, Owner Amr Zedan filed suit Wednesday in Louisville seeking a temporary injunction that would allow his horses and all others trained by Bob Baffert to run in the GI Kentucky Derby and all other Derby-week races. Baffert is not a party to the lawsuit.

Zedan owns the GI Arkansas Derby winner Muth (Good Magic), who would be among the Derby favorites if allowed to race.

After Medina Spirit (Protonico) tested positive for betamethasone in the 2021 Derby Baffert was banned by the track for two years. Late last year they extended the ban through all of 2024. In past years, Baffert has sent his horses to other trainers, which allowed them to run at Churchill. This year, in a show of solidarity from his owners, including Zedan, Baffert has not lost a single horse to another trainer.

Baffert and Zedan have fought the suspensions through many layers of the court system and they have yet to win a round. Their cases have revolved around the betamethasone positive and have argued that because it was found in an ointment and not in an injection no penalty was warranted. According to the Times report, Zedan is trying a new tactic. He is contending that he bought horses at sales in 2022 based on the fact they could run in the 2024 Derby and he had no reason to believe at the time that the Baffert ban would be extended. Zedan spent about $10.7 million to purchase six horses including Muth and the highly-regarded Maymun (Frosted) with the primary goal of winning the 2024 Derby.

Zedan's attorney will argue that the extension of the ban is not grounded in any contractual or common laws, that it defied the authority of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority and threatens the value of this year's Kentucky Derby.

Zedan lawyer John Quinn casts Churchilll Downs Inc. CEO Bill Carstanjen as the person most responsible for keeping Baffert out of the Derby. The suit accused Carstanjen of ” pursuing a crazed vendetta at the expense of letting fair, healthy competition run its course.” It continues: “among the losers are CDI itself and its own shareholders, who should be welcoming, not banning, the best and fastest horses that have qualified for this year's race.”

In a statement, Zedan echoed his lawyer's comments.

“I am a longtime admirer of the Kentucky Derby and specifically headquartered my stable…in Kentucky because it is world renowned for horse breeding,” Zedan said in the statement. “Bringing this lawsuit is the last thing I ever wanted or expected.

But given Bill Carstanjen's vindictive personal vendetta against our stable's trainer Bob Baffert–who happens to be one of the most legendary trainers in the history of our sport–the horse racing industry I revere is being compromised.”

“While I am not a plaintiff in the lawsuit recently brought by Zedan Racing Stables against Churchill Downs, I would like nothing more than for the horses I train to have an opportunity to run at Churchill Downs,” Baffert told The Times in a text.

It may be a long shot, but Zedan is clearly trying to open up a legal avenue that will allow his horses to race in the Derby. With the Derby just 42 days away, the Zedan team is playing it close when it comes to being granted a temporary injunction.

A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Monday morning with Judge Jennifer Bryant Wilcox.

The post Report: Zedan Sues Churchill in Attempt to Force Track to Accept Baffert Entries appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Facing Extortion Allegations, Defendants in Defamation Lawsuit Contend ‘Baffert is the Rare Libel-Proof Plaintiff’

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

Judge Throws Out PETA-Backed Lawsuit that Sought to Block Loan to NYRA for Belmont Renovations

An Albany County Court Judge has dismissed a lawsuit from two New York taxpayers backed by PETA that attempted to block the State of New York from loaning NYRA $455 million that is earmarked for the construction of a new Belmont Park.

The new Belmont Park is expected to open for the 2026 spring meet.

The plaintiffs, Jannette Patterson and John Dileonardo, had argued that the New York State Constitution prohibited the state from giving or loaning state funds to any private corporation. The lawsuit, filed in June, was announced by PETA. Its press release issued at the time said the organization was “hoping to prevent a shady deal to fund a private entertainment business with money from New York taxpayers.”

“No responsible private lender would make such a staggering loan to NYRA,” read the original complaint.

But Judge Peter Lynch ruled that the state can issue loans where the loan is predominantly for a public purpose, which, he wrote, was the case with the rebuilding of Belmont Park.

“It is well settled that the constitutional prohibition against State loans to private entities or for private undertakings is not applicable where the loan is for a predominantly a public purpose, and private benefit, if any, is incidental,” Lynch wrote in his decision. “This interpretation of the constitution does not constitute an unauthorized and unlimited grant of an 'exception' to the prohibition, distinct from the enumerated exceptions set forth in NY Constitution, article VII, § 8 (1) and (2). To the contrary, where the appropriation is in furtherance of a predominantly public purpose it simply may not be construed as a private loan or undertaking in the first instance. Funding the renovation of Belmont Park Racetrack constitutes just such a public purpose!”

Lynch referenced a case where a court ruled that the state could contribute $600 million to the $1.4 billion it cost to rebuild the Buffalo Bills Stadium.

“Horse racing fans who attend Belmont Park are no different than football fans who attend the Buffalo Bills stadium,” he wrote. “They are part of the community, and their ability to enjoy the sport of their choice improves their quality of life. Considering Plaintiff's claim that the horse racing industry is in economic straits, it is manifest that the Legislature's funding plan to modernize.”

“The construction of a new Belmont Park will create thousands of jobs, generate billions in economic activity and secure the future of Thoroughbred racing in New York State,” NYRA spokesman Patrick McKenna said after the decision was announced. “This decision recognizes the importance of this transformational project, which will deliver the world-class Belmont Park that New Yorkers deserve.”

NYRA was one of five defendants in the suit. The others were the State of New York; The New York State Assembly; Governor Kathy Hochul and State Comptroller Thomas P. Dinapoli.

The plaintiffs had asked for a preliminary injunction that would have halted the loan. Lynch denied that motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint.

In their complaint, Patterson, Dileonardo and PETA tried to portray racing as a dying sport that did not deserve what amounted to a huge financial shot in the arm from the state. It said that attendance had dropped by 88% since 1978 and that taxes paid to the state from racing had fallen by 90% between 1970 and 2019. The suit called racing a “moribund industry that has seen 41 long-established racetracks shut down in the United States since 2000.”

The post Judge Throws Out PETA-Backed Lawsuit that Sought to Block Loan to NYRA for Belmont Renovations appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Oral Arguments Oct. 11 In Lawsuit to Halt Belmont Renovation Loan

The Supreme Court of New York will hear oral arguments Oct. 11 in a case involving two self-described “citizen taxpayers” who want the state's $455 million loan to renovate Belmont Park declared as “an illegal and unconstitutional expenditure, misappropriation, misapplication, or disbursement of State funds.”

During the oral arguments, the court will consider both the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion to dismiss the case made by the defendants, who are the New York Racing Association (NYRA), the State of New York, the New York State Assembly, the New York State Senate, Governor Kathy Hochul, state comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

The plaintiffs, Jannette Patterson and John Di Leonardo, initiated the lawsuit on June 22 to try to halt the flow of any state money for the project.

A NYRA court filing on Aug. 18 stated that the claim “fails as a matter of law” and that the plaintiffs “cannot establish irreparable harm.”

The Belmont renovation loan was approved in May when the final New York state budget for fiscal year 2024 included the funding.

The post Oral Arguments Oct. 11 In Lawsuit to Halt Belmont Renovation Loan appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post