14 HBPA Affiliates, 4 Tracks Want in on HISA Lawsuit

Led by 14 affiliates of the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (HBPA) and four racetracks, an alliance of entities seeking protection from the alleged harms of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act Authority (HISA) have asked a federal judge to allow them to participate in an existing lawsuit that claims HISA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) violated the Fourth and Seventh Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, plus the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

On Friday, the anti-HISA parties filed what is known as a “motion to intervene” in United States District Court (Western District of Louisiana). If accepted by the judge, it would grant the petitioners status in the case alongside the lead plaintiffs from the states of Louisiana and West Virginia.

An “intervenor” designation allows outside parties who have a personal stake in the outcome of a civil suit to participate in a case, even if their interests don't align exactly with those of the original plaintiffs.

“[Our] interests will be seriously impaired if Defendants prevail in their effort to enforce the enjoined HISA Rules beyond Louisiana and West Virginia,” the movants wrote in their Aug. 12 court filing. “Intervenors are not adequately represented by the parties to this action. Intervenors therefore respectfully request that this Court grant their motion to intervene as plaintiffs to protect their and their members' interests.

“Specifically, Intervenors seek to ensure that HISA does not kneecap the horseracing industry as a whole or themselves with the implementation and enforcement of defective HISA Rules,” the filing continued.

HISA and the FTC have consistently denied the allegations listed in the underlying June 29 lawsuit, which was filed two days before the federally mandated July 1 start date for HISA's first set of rules.

“Plaintiffs' eleventh-hour challenge to those rules on the eve of the statutory deadline [is an] emergency of their own making,” the defendants wrote in court documents just after the complaint was filed, noting that the plaintiffs waited a full three months after the approval of the rules to challenge them in court as being immediately harmful.

The HBPA affiliates wanting in on the suit are Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Charles Town and Tampa Bay Downs. The Colorado Horse Racing Association, which is that state's statutorily recognized horsemen's group for all racing breeds, also wants to be an intervenor.

Three of the four opting-in racetracks are in Nebraska: Fonner Park, Horsemen's Park, and the recently approved racino that will go by the name Legacy Downs. The fourth is Arizona's Turf Paradise.

The North American Association of Racetrack Veterinarians, plus the state of Oklahoma and its racing commission, round out the list of potential intervenors.

“Intervenors seek to join this action to protect their interests and those of their members or citizens in avoiding severe economic harms to the horseracing industry generally and to Intervenors specifically through the enforcement of HISA Rules that suffer from fatal procedural and substantive defects,” the Aug. 12 filing stated.

“Intervenors further seek intervention to address HISA's exercise of regulatory power against Intervenors and the threat of severe sanctions that HISA is currently imposing on Intervenors,” the filing continued.

“Intervenors interests may not–indeed, will not–be adequately represented by the existing parties because they have a different ultimate objective from the [existing plaintiffs] by covering a different portion of the United States and of the horseracing industry,” the filing stated.

Beyond the states of Louisiana and West Virginia, the Jockeys' Guild and various Louisiana-based “covered persons” under HISA rule are the existing plaintiffs.

Friday's motion to intervene asked for “expedited” consideration. But that might not be possible because aspects of the underlying lawsuit have been appealed to a higher court.

When cases go under appeal, the lower-court judge has limited power to change anything in the underlying case until the appeals process has been completed. The movants in Friday's filing wrote that they recognized that fact.

“Of course, Intervenors understand that though this Court's preliminary injunction order is on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, which partially stayed the injunction pending the outcome of an expedited appeal,” the filing stated. “At a minimum, the Court could hold the motion to intervene in abeyance, pending the resolution of the appeal.”

The post 14 HBPA Affiliates, 4 Tracks Want in on HISA Lawsuit appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Appeals Court Revisits Some Elements of HISA Stay Order

A panel of three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a new, more fine-tuned order Monday in the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act Authority (HISA) lawsuit that narrows the scope of an “administrative stay” that same court had issued five days earlier.

The Aug. 8 order now means that instead of the entire slate of HISA rules being re-activated in Louisiana and West Virginia (as per the Aug. 3 Appeals Court order that trumped a preliminary injunction issued July 26 by a lower U.S. District Court in Western Louisiana), three contested HISA rules will once again be off-limits from being enforced in those two plaintiff states, at least until “expedited” oral arguments are scheduled in front of the Appeals Court next month.

“The district court in granting the injunction that is the subject of the motion to stay ruled only

on the lawfulness of the rules and not on the constitutional issues raised which are pending before this court in another case,” the Aug. 8 order stated.

“The district court held that Plaintiffs had a strong likelihood of success on the following two claims: '1) The 14-day period for notice and comment for each set of approved rules was insufficient under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and 2) Several rules go beyond the statutory authority given to HISA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).'” The order stated. “We conclude that the stay elements are met with respect to the insufficiency of the 14-day period of notice.

“With respect to the second part of the ruling, the district court did not address the vast majority of the regulations at issue, instead concluding only that a few of the rules within the regulations exceeded the authority.”

The order continued: “Having considered those matters, we rule as follows: The motion to stay the district court's July 26, 2022, preliminary injunction is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. We grant the motion to stay the injunction as to all of the regulations except for the following: Rules 8400 and 8510 and two provisions of Rule 2010.”

Rule 8400 establishes the Authority's power of access to records and places of business used in connection with Covered Horses and authorize the seizure of medications or other items that are in violation or suspected violation of Authority rules. The rules require Covered Persons to cooperate with the Authority in investigations, and they include the duty to respond truthfully to questions posed by investigators about a racing matter. Rule 8400 also authorizes the issuance of subpoenas and oaths to witnesses.

Rule 8510 is HISA's “Methodology for Determining Assessments” that fund the Authority.

The plaintiffs in the underlying June 29 lawsuit (the state of Louisiana, its racing commission, the Louisiana Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, the Louisiana Thoroughbred Breeders Association, the Jockeys' Guild, the state of West Virginia, its racing commission, and five individuals regulated as “covered persons” under the HISA Act) have argued that using purses as part of that assessment calculation violates the enabling legislation.

The two provisions of Rule 2010 that now can't be enforced in the plaintiff states deal with the definitions section of the racetrack safety program, specifically “the date of the Horse's entry in a Covered Horserace” and “the date of the Horse's nomination for a Covered Horserace,” according to the Aug. 8 order.

The defendants (the HISA Authority, the FTC, and board members and overseers of both entities) are alleged to have violated the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, plus the APA, which governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

But that underlying lawsuit can't move forward until the Appeals Court issues get legally resolved first.

The post Appeals Court Revisits Some Elements of HISA Stay Order appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Feds: Last-Minute HISA Suit An ‘Emergency of Plantiffs’ Own Making’

A federal judge on Thursday opted not to immediately grant the “expedited consideration” restraining order or injunction that opponents of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) alleged was needed to stave off the “irreparable harm” from “illegal rules” that are set to go into effect at midnight Friday.

But within several hours of learning June 30 that Judge Terry Doughty of U.S. District Court (Western District of Louisiana) had given HISA and other defendants two weeks to file a response to the restraining order motion, the lead plaintiffs from the states of Louisiana and West Virginia made a separate plea to the court, asking for an “immediate” status conference to address “the chaos created by HISA.”

The judge granted that request, and according to the court docket, a telephone conference was to have happened at 5:30 p.m. Eastern, some 6 1/2 hours before the first set of HISA rules was to go into effect. As of 7:30 p.m. Thursday, there were no notations within the docket that the court made any new orders as the result of that status conference.

For details on the new federal lawsuit filed June 29 that seeks to block the HISA rules from going into effect, click here.

“[T]hese issues are extremely urgent,” the plaintiffs stated in the motion requesting the urgent conference. “Plaintiffs face severe and irreparable harm if not granted a temporary restraining order before the legally deficient rules purportedly take effect tomorrow, July 1.”

The Department of Justice, which represents the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), one of the defendants in the case, stated in a June 30 filing that “The FTC Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' requests. The three rules Plaintiffs challenge were approved on [Mar. 3, Mar. 25, and Apr. 1], All three were stipulated to take effect on July 1 by statute. Plaintiffs' eleventh-hour challenge to those rules on the eve of the statutory deadline is therefore an emergency of their own making. Having waited three months to come to Court, Plaintiffs are not entitled to abrogate the two-weeks that the Court has already allotted Defendants for their response briefs.”

The post Feds: Last-Minute HISA Suit An ‘Emergency of Plantiffs’ Own Making’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Laoban Co-Owner Sues Mortality Insurers Over Alleged ‘Wrongful Denial’

A co-owner of the deceased stallion Laoban (Uncle Mo) is suing a collective of insurance providers in an alleged wrongful denial of coverage case for failing to pay out on mortality policies in the aftermath of the 8-year-old's sudden death 10 months ago.

The civil complaint was filed Mar. 22 in Kentucky's Fayette Circuit Court. Paulick Report first broke the story.

According to the court filing, Cypress Creek Equine, LLC, wants the defendants–North American Specialty Insurance Company, XL Specialty Insurance Company and Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Lloyd's Kentucky, Inc.–to pay an undisclosed sum that includes mortality coverage, compensatory damages, court costs and attorney fees.

According to the lawsuit, “On May 24, 2021, the healthy stallion Laoban, partially owned by Cypress, died unexpectedly in Fayette County, Kentucky, after being given vitamin and mineral supplements.”I

Laoban, whose only win from nine starts came in the 2016 GII Jim Dandy S. at Saratoga, retired after that season with earnings of $526,250 and stood at Sequel Stallions in New York. As TDN's Sid Fernando recently reported, Laoban “initially stood for $7,500, but he was a hit with his first 2-year-olds–ending up second on the 2020 first-crop list behind Uncle Mo's Nyquist–and was moved to WinStar in Kentucky for the 2021 season at a $25,000 fee.”

The sire of 10 black-type winners, Laoban's first crop included Grade l winner Simply Ravishing and Grade II winner and multiple Grade l-placed Keepmeinmind.

Laoban is also the sire of Un Ojo, who upset the GII Rebel S. last month at 75-1 odds. That one-eyed gelding is currently listed as an “on the bubble” horse in the most recent TDN Top 12 rankings for the GI Kentucky Derby, but he is third on the official qualifying points list. Cypress Creek Equine owns Un Ojo.

“At the time of the death, Cypress was insured for the death by mortality insurance policies issued and/or adjusted by the Insurers,” the filing stated.

“In a letter dated August 4, 2021, the Insurers wrongfully denied Cypress mortality coverage and therefore an actual controversy exists pursuant to [Kentucky state law],” the filing stated.

“The denial was alternatively based on provision(s) in the policies which are ambiguous and/or must be construed to afford coverage to Cypress pursuant to its reasonable expectations of coverage,” the filing stated.

The defendants could not be reached for comment prior to deadline for this story. They have 21 days from the filing of the suit to respond in court.

The post Laoban Co-Owner Sues Mortality Insurers Over Alleged ‘Wrongful Denial’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights