Via TD Thornton
Kentucky judge oversees lawsuit brought by Amr Zedan's integrated racing organization against Churchill Downs, Inc. (CDI) to try and enter horses trained by Bob Baffert that were not banned from entering the GI Kentucky Derby. Telling both sides Wednesday that he now has a better understanding of a relatively new “baseless lawsuit.” ” legislation to be able to provide written opinions by the end of the week.
That opinion is unlikely to fully decide the April 3 civil lawsuit, but it is expected to resolve Zedan's motion for an injunction that could pave the way for his case. 'TDN Rising Star' Muth (Good magic) to be able to race in the Derby. It could also resolve CDI's motion to dismiss.
CDI has expelled Baffert from its property since shortly after the 2021 Derby, which the now-disqualified Medina Spirit owned and trained by Baffert won after testing positive for betamethasone.
The original ban was only supposed to last for two Derby matches. But in July 2023, CDI extended the penalty until 2024.
Zedan claimed that he spent millions buying horses at auction before extending the ban because he understood that Baffert would be allowed to train those horses for the 150th Derby in 2024.
Jefferson Circuit Judge Mitchell Perry needed just over 20 minutes of testimony from all parties on April 17 to declare that he now had a better understanding of how CDI invoked the “Anti-SLAPP” (Anti-SLAPP) law. strategic lawsuit against public participation )–which automatically halts certain related legal proceedings–could affect his upcoming written opinion.
“Obviously I've always had to deal with bans in different ways. [contexts],” Perry said. “So that part was clearly known to the court. This new regulation does not.”
CDI on April 8 has moved to layoffs Zedan filed suit, citing in part that the claim contravenes Kentucky's Anti-SLAPP law, which provides protections in certain circumstances based on the performance of a person's word.
In April 2022, Kentucky became the second state to enact its version of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), a model anti-SLAPP law drafted by the Uniform Law Commission.
To protest the application of that regulation, Zedan has clear concern that CDI’s legal invocation of UPEPA/Anti-SLAPP is “not only futile but also wrong.”
More importantly, in terms of time, an Anti-SLAPP claim, if allowed to proceed by a judge, would take at least 30 days, if not months, to be legally brought.
At an earlier hearing Monday, no one seemed sure whether invoking that law, if authorized by Perry, would mean stopping all other legal proceedings, including the motion pending Zedan's request for a temporary restraining order. So, Perry asked representatives of the Kentucky Attorney General to appear in court on April 17 with their explanation.
At Wednesday's hearing, Lindsey Keiser, an assistant attorney general for Kentucky, told the judge that under a subsection of state law, “UPEPA does not abridge judicial decisions or judicial discretion to the motions for a temporary restraining order.”
“Our interpretation is as follows,” Keizer continued [a subsection of the law] you can do it at the same time [with deciding on CDI’s motion invoking UPEPA and Zedan’s injunction request]. Officially, the temporary ban will not take effect.”
Zedan's attorney, Derek Shaffer, urged the judge to use that explanation from the attorney general's office to go ahead and rule on the temporary injunction. Horses declared for the Derby need to be at Churchill by April 27.
Regardless of the larger questions regarding UPEPA's complaint and the underlying lawsuit itself, Shaffer said, “you have to resolve the motion for temporary restraining order on the merits.”
Thomas Dupree, Jr., CDI's attorney, wanted to clarify that the injunctive relief sought by Zedan was not sought to uphold the well-documented rules established by CDI regarding the Derby, but rather is to cancel them.
“I want to emphasize that the nature of the temporary injunction they are seeking here is of course not a 'status quo' injunction,” Dupree said. “It's a ban that would certainly disrupt the status quo in a significant way.”
Although it was not mentioned during Wednesday's hearing, a ruling allowing Muth to enter the race would have myriad implications. It is unknown whether the injunction in Zedan's favor will allow other Baffert practitioners owned by other entities to also participate in the Derby, or whether lifting the injunction will also allow Baffert practitioners to enter the Derby. Stake the GI Kentucky Oaks or any other Derby undercard stakes.
Kentucky news website WAVE3 reported Tuesday that one of the co-owners of Baffert-trained Imagination (Into Mischief) filed an amicus brief with the court seeking similar eligibility passed a ban on that colt, on April 6. finishing second in the GI Santa Anita Derby.
It is also unclear what such a ruling would mean for Derby entrants owned by other connections, namely that horses that have already qualified could be brought down below the points limit limits set by CDI used to determine Derby eligibility if Muth (and possibly other Baffert trainees) were suddenly ordered to race.
CDI usually accepts 24 horses for the Derby, of which 20 are allowed to start.
Perry said there will be no press conference or media announcement regarding his ruling, which will be issued as an opinion electronically posted to the court's filing system .
“And you'll know sometime before the weekend,” Perry said.
