Lawyers for Amr Zedan’s horse racing team have issued a scathing response to Churchill Downs Inc.’s request. on the swift settlement of Zedan’s lawsuit to overturn the ban on Bob Baffert racing at its track.
Zedan’s lawsuit was filed on April 11 in response to CDI’s motion three days earlier accusing Zedan of violating Kentucky’s anti-SLAPP statute.
“CDI’s invocation of (the act) is not only useless but also erroneous,” the response said. “The statutory purpose (of the act) is twofold: to protect the right to petition and freedom of expression of individuals on matters of public interest, and at the same time, to protect the rights of the people and organization is laudably filing suit for actual injuries. However, CDI’s motion is contrary to both purposes. … Zedan filed this suit not to challenge the words but merely the petition simply to challenge the CDI’s conduct in banning Baffert-trained horses from its races and tracks.”
Zedan asserted that CDI’s proposal was defective “in every respect” and that his lawsuit not only did not trigger the anti-SLAPP statute but also fell within an express statutory exception.
Zedan’s response filed today is an attempt to avoid an automatic stay of all other proceedings in his case while Churchill’s anti-SLAPP claim makes its way through the courts. Suspension or discontinuance of other claims is provided by statute in certain circumstances and may prevent a hearing on Zedan’s motion for a temporary restraining order allowing Baffert to operate Zedan’s Arkansas Derby (G1 ) winner Muth in the Kentucky Derby (G1). Under current CDI rules, Muth is not eligible to run for Baffert or any other trainer in the Derby because he remains in Baffert’s care beyond the deadline set by CDI under race conditions. Its racing.
Muth won the 2024 Arkansas Derby at Oaklawn Park
CDI explicitly stated in the notice of automatic stay it recently filed that because CDI had filed an anti-SLAPP motion, all other proceedings between the parties “have been automatically discharged.” …This mandatory stay ‘shall remain in effect’ until a ruling on this motion and the conclusion of any appeal from that ruling…and prevents the Court from This court hears or rules on Plaintiffs’ pending motion for temporary restraining order until that time.”
Zedan’s response said CDI’s reading of the statute, such that its mere invocation would effectively confiscate interim relief, is clearly unconstitutional. Zedan also provides some factual basis for its position: it says that Zedan’s claims fall outside the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, that a statutory exception for commercial activities would apply give Churchill Downsand CDI has failed to demonstrate that any of Zedan’s claims were without foundation.
CDI’s motion is scheduled to be heard April 15 in the Business Court of Jefferson Circuit Court in Louisville, Ky. Regardless of the outcome, an appeal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals is virtually guaranteed.
