Via TD Thornton
Legal loopholes deepened Tuesday in one of four lawsuits designed to derail the Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), pulling scammers Drayden Van Dyke, Miguel Vazquez and Edwin Gonzalez stepped in when plaintiffs allege new harms from their rule enforcement. believe in contempt of court order.
Plaintiffs led by Louisiana, West Virginia and the Jockeys Association asked a federal judge to issue an immediate order to enforce the July 26 order to prevent those who mislead members of the Guild from complying with the rules. HISA rules nationwide. The plaintiffs also want the judge to ask the HISA defendants to explain to the court why they should not be disregarded for “a clear violation of this Court order within four days of the Court’s submission of the order.” make a judgment”.
A series of filings on August 2 in the United States District Court (Western District of Louisiana) focus on the different interpretations the two sides have regarding what Judge Terry Doughty meant as he wrote in the order. July 26 that, “The geographic scope of the order shall be limited to the states of Louisiana and West Virginia, and to all Plaintiffs in this proceeding. “
The plaintiffs — most specifically, the Guild — believe the judge’s words apply to “all members of the Jockeys’ Guild, regardless of the jurisdiction of the United States in which the person is riding.”
HISA defendants have steadfastly asserted that individual Guild members are clearly not the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and that treating them in that way “would devastate the sport. For example, many riders are not members of the Guild, so different rules will apply to riders in the same race. “
Separately, the defendants made a formal request for clarification of the wording of the order, but the court said the judge likely won’t make the request until next week, unless Doughty chooses to proceed with the matter. subject.
And what’s more, the defendants’ appeal to their denial request to stay in the full July 26 preliminary order is head of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.
Are you confused yet? There’s more. This case is just one of four lawsuits initiated at the federal level this year to keep HISA rules from taking effect nationally. The first two were removed by the judges but are in the process of appeal. Wednesday just submitted on Monday in a Texas court.
According to Tuesday’s filing, Guild members Van Dyke, Vazquez and Gonzalez were just the first three charioteers the plaintiffs believe are being harmed by enforcement of safety rules. HISA is considered contemptuous.
“While ink has not yet dried on this Court order that originally barred Respondents from enforcing HISA’s unlawful rules, some Respondents have decided that they need not comply with this Order,” the filing said. show. “[D]based on the plain text of the Order, Defendants have the authority to further make and enforce the mandatory rules against members of the Plaintiffs’ Jockeys Guild. “
According to the filing, on July 27, the day after the alleged haphazard order was issued, a spokesperson for HISA stated that “HISA will continue to enforce its rules in all jurisdictions.” applicable jurisdictions, excluding Louisiana and West Virginia. Outside of those states, the court order only applies to the five individuals specifically named in the case. “
And on July 29, the filing said, the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) issued an advisory that read: “Unless and until a federal court clarifies the previous ruling by indicated otherwise, the CHRB will continue to abide by its agreement with HISA by enforcing HISA’s safety rules, including those covering the use of riding plants, as the CHRB has done since HISA’s rules go into effect on July 1.”
Then on July 30, Del Mar’s managers issued a judgment against Van Dyke for his use of a mount during a July 29 race that they deemed a violation of HISA Rule 2280 , a $250 fine and a one-day suspension.
“The suspension is set to prevent Mr. Van Dyke from participating in the August 6 race, but he must confirm his participation by August 3 for that race day,” the filing states Tuesday. “Just to be clear, Mr. Van Dyke is a member of the Plaintiffs Jockeys Association and therefore Respondents are required to implement and enforce the Track Safety Rules that were mandated against Mr. Van Dyke.”
The filing continues: “Over the weekend, Plaintiffs were informed that HISA administrators at Gulfstream Park in Hallandale, Florida plan to bring multiple judgments against members of Nguyen’s Jockeys’ Foundation. for similar offences.”
As for actions in the July 31 races, the filing states, “HISA administrators intend to issue a written judgment on August 5 against Miguel Vazquez [for] violation of HISA Rule 2280 in effect prohibiting a jockey from raising his or her wrist above a certain point before striking a horse with his riding shirt; and Edwin Gonzalez for violating HISA Rule 2280 is required for another equestrian crop violation. “
Both Gulfstream jockeys are expected to receive a $250 fine each, a one-day suspension, and points for escalating penalties for further infractions.
“Through these ongoing enforcement actions, the Respondents have made it clear that they seek to enforce mandatory rules against members of the Plaintiff across the country outside of Louisiana and West Virginia. ,” stated the plaintiffs’ petition.
The plaintiffs are asking the judge to pay damages to cover the alleged loss of wallet earnings the three riders will incur, plus a “coercive penalty of $250 per day for any given day. no score was evaluated… due to HISA’s disdain not being purged from their records. “
The Guild-backed plaintiffs also want those damages to apply to any other Guild members who are subsequently fined while the matter is contested in court.
As for how the judge might rule when clarifying his order, the plaintiffs noted in court documents that “nearly 50 years of Supreme Court precedent” is on their side, because precedent asserts that “members of the association are entitled to the benefits that their associations have in litigation.”
inside overall lawsuitHISA, the Federal Trade Commission, and the board members and supervisors of both organizations allegedly violated the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Amendments to Structure, plus the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs the process by which federal agencies develop and enact regulations. An adverse judgment against the defendants may mean reopen the public comment and rewrite phases of all existing and in-use HISA rules.
