The Kentucky Equestrian Commission filed a motion to dismiss coach Bob Baffert’s case in the Kentucky Court of Appeals, arguing that the Franklin Circuit Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to rule on Baffert’s stay request and order provisional for a 90-day suspension granted by Kentucky administrators.
Subject matter jurisdiction and place are different legal concepts. Placement deals with whether a case is filed in the correct location, while subject matter jurisdiction is about whether a court has jurisdiction over the type of case filed. Both parties agreed in the filing filed March 29 that the Franklin Circuit Court was the correct venue for Baffert to appeal the denials of his stay request and temporary order.
The problem, according to a KHRC motion filed March 30, is that Baffert filed an appeal too soon – after KHRC chief executive Marc Guilfoil overruled the manager’s ruling, but before KHRC itself. gave the final order to refuse to stay. In essence, the KHRC argued that Baffert had appealed the erroneous decision.
Baffert’s suspension, which began after Medina Spirit tested positive for the corticosteroid betamethasone following the 2021 Kentucky Derby presented by Woodford Reserve (G1), is set to begin March 8. On February 25, Guilfoil issued a ruling in writing saying that he had found no good reason to maintain the suspension. Baffert appealed to the Franklin Circuit Court on February 28 as an amended complaint. In a March 2 hearing in that court, Judge Thomas Wingate and the parties agreed that Wingate could not act until KHRC decided whether to continue with the suspension. An order consenting to that effect was signed by Wingate on March 3. On March 4, the KHRC met and voted 10-0 to deny the stay request, with three abstentions.
KHRC now argues that Baffert never filed an amendment to his complaint with the Franklin Circuit Court claiming to appeal KHRC’s final order. However, KHRC argues, the statutory program of Kentucky Amendment 230.320 requires exactly that.
It is well-founded Kentucky law that the parties cannot give subject jurisdiction to a court, not even by agreement. The subject’s jurisdiction depends on the occurrence of precedent events. In essence, KHRC argued that Baffert’s failure to amend his complaint to explicitly appeal from KHRC’s final order nullified the Franklin Circuit Court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Lack of jurisdiction over the matter was not an argument made by KHRC in Franklin Circuit Court. However, the KHRC’s motion to dismiss points to another long-established rule in Kentucky, and that objections to the lack of subject jurisdiction can be brought up at any time, even both first when appealing, citing a 2013 Kentucky Court of Appeal precedent.
KHRC argues that its place is “form over substance”. The proposal, signed by KHRC general counsel Jennifer Wolsing, states, “Movants did not correctly file the steps required by KRS 230.320. Even their request for relief order did not mention it. refer to the Commission’s Final Order.”
It is unclear when Baffert’s suspension will begin if the dismissal proposal is successful. In that case, two different orders signed by Wingate to suspend the imposition of the suspension may not have any effect. The first adjournment was agreed to by the KHRC at the March 2 hearing. The second decision, adjourning the suspension until April 4, was made in Wingate’s ruling denying Baffert’s request to suspend the suspension until April 4. stay and temporary orders.
Baffert’s legal team will have the opportunity to respond to the dismissal request.
