U.S. Trotting Ass'n v. Chicago Downs Ass'n, Inc., s. 80-1948

Citation665 F.2d 781
Decision Date08 December 1981
Docket NumberNos. 80-1948,s. 80-1948
Parties1981-2 Trade Cases 64,393 The UNITED STATES TROTTING ASSOCIATION, an Ohio non-profit corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO DOWNS ASSOCIATION, INC., Fox Valley Trotting Club, Inc., and Illinois Harness Horsemen's Association, Defendants-Appellees. to 80-1950.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

A. Vernon Carnahan, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Thomas D. Nash, Jr., Chicago, Ill., Dominic H. Frinzi, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendants-appellees.

Before CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, and PELL, SPRECHER, BAUER, WOOD and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges, en banc.

CUMMINGS, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff United States Trotting Association (USTA) brought these three actions against Chicago Downs Association, Inc. and Fox Valley Trotting Club, Inc., alleging that they had unlawfully appropriated USTA's property. The three actions were consolidated in the district court and remain consolidated here.

In the first suit (district court number 77-C-3312; our number 80-1948) USTA alleged that Chicago Downs, an Illinois management corporation that sponsors race meetings at Sportsman's Park, a harness race track in Cicero, Illinois, used USTA registration and eligibility certificates during 1975 and 1977 when Chicago Downs was not affiliated with USTA and thereby unlawfully appropriated USTA's property. In the second suit (district court number 77-C-3313; our number 80-1949) USTA made the same allegation against Fox Valley, another Illinois management corporation sponsoring harness horse-racing meetings at Sportsman's Park, with respect to meetings conducted in 1975 and 1977. Both suits sought an accounting, a money judgment and an injunction against continuing misappropriation. USTA's third suit (district court number 78-C-1258; our number 80-1950) sought to enjoin Fox Valley from using USTA certificates during and after the 1978 racing season.

Fox Valley filed an answer and then a counterclaim in the third of the suits. Count I of its counterclaim charged USTA with instigating a group boycott against it in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Count II charged USTA with tortiously interfering with the contractual and business relations between Fox Valley and the Illinois Harness Horsemen's Association (IHHA). 1

Conceding for the time being that there were no material factual issues in dispute, the parties filed motions for summary judgment on all issues. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on USTA's misappropriation claim because USTA had failed to show that it owned the registration and eligibility certificates. 487 F.Supp. 1008, 1012-1014 (N.D.Ill.1980). Fox Valley's motion for summary judgment on its antitrust counterclaim was granted on the ground that USTA's conduct was a group boycott per se violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 487 F.Supp. at 1014-1016. As to Count II of Fox Valley's counterclaim, Judge Aspen held that it was entitled to summary judgment since USTA's actions amounted to tortious interference "with the business relationship existing between the tracks and the horsemen." 487 F.Supp. at 1016-1017. A permanent injunction was subsequently entered barring USTA from invoking any of its by-laws or rules "to sanction any of its horseowner or driver members solely by reason of their participation in any future Fox Valley harness race meetings while Fox Valley is neither a USTA member nor contract track." Various racing associations have filed amici curiae briefs urging reversal. 2 We reverse the district court's summary judgments and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. We also vacate the permanent injunction awarded to Fox Valley.

I. Background of Litigation

USTA is an Ohio incorporated, non-profit service organization. It was founded in 1939 to counteract widespread problems in harness racing. Before that time a plethora of local sanctioning organizations had produced inconsistent regulations; record-keeping was spotty; penalties proved unenforceable; and the sport had fallen into general disrepute. The purpose of USTA was to develop comprehensive national records and to promulgate uniform rules and standards. USTA has never had any interest in breeding, buying, selling, or racing horses, nor any investment in race tracks or race meetings. It operates solely as a sanctioning organization and information bank. Since its inception, USTA has grown in size and influence. In 1977 it had 40,861 active members, 3 including 426 fair race tracks and 65 parimutuel tracks. Only members can register standardbred horses with the USTA and obtain eligibility certificates documenting a horse's performance in a given racing season. Only members can vote on matters of USTA governance. Nonetheless, tracks that do not wish to become USTA members can affiliate as "contract tracks," paying to use USTA services on the same basis as member tracks, i.e., a percentage of the parimutuel take for each racing day, not in excess of $330 per day. See United States Trotting Association Charter, By-Laws, Rules, and Regulations ("Rules") Art. I, § 4 and Art. VII, § 1.

Owner members of USTA register their standardbred horses with USTA. USTA issues a registration certificate to the owner that describes in detail the horse's physical markings and pedigree, and identifies its owner and breeder. The reverse side of the certificate provides space to record any transfers of ownership of the horse. In addition, USTA maintains central records of the information on the registration certificates and of any transfers of title, so that attempts to tamper with the certificates can be detected.

USTA also issues an eligibility certificate for each registered horse. This certificate contains performance information compiled from the horse's last eight starts in the prior racing season. Throughout the current season, pertinent information about the horse's performance in each of its races is added to the certificate by the clerk of the racecourse, a track employee who is licensed by USTA. The clerk of the course also records the same information on a "Judge's Sheet" which is forwarded to USTA, thus making it possible to detect discrepancies or alterations in the eligibility certificates.

Eligibility certificates are used by track officials to select competitive horses for balanced race fields. Registration certificates are chiefly important in insuring accurate identification and honest transfers of harness horses. They also play a limited role in actual racing activities. Many tracks, including Chicago Downs and Fox Valley, run "claiming races," in which a price is established at which the winning horse can be purchased or "claimed." Such tracks, including Chicago Downs and Fox Valley, require that the USTA registration certificate be surrendered to the new owner before the claiming amount is disbursed. The purpose of the claiming race is to keep owners from entering superior horses in mediocre fields, again to foster competitive races.

In Illinois the legislature has relied on the offices of USTA as an integral part of its regulatory scheme. Illinois law requires that all horses entering harness races be "registered as (harness or standardbred horses) with and meet ( ) the requirements of and (be) approved by the United States Trotting Association." Ill.Rev.Stat.chap. 8 § 37-3.06(c) (1979). In addition the Illinois Racing Board Rules provide that any harness horse entered at a parimutuel track have a current USTA eligibility certificate (Rule 9.01), that all matters relating to registration of harness horses be governed by USTA rules (Rule 9.02), that all horses be tattooed with their USTA identification number (Rule 7.08), that persons suspended by USTA be barred from participating in harness race meetings (Rule 5.10), and that clerks of the course send race information to USTA and the Illinois Racing Board (Rule 6.18). The thirteen other states that allow parimutuel harness racing have similarly incorporated USTA standards in their regulatory systems (App. 304-305).

During the 1975, 1977, and subsequent racing seasons, 4 neither Chicago Downs nor Fox Valley joined USTA as a regular member or contracted to buy USTA's services. Both continued to hold races with USTA-registered horses and to use the information contained on USTA registration and eligibility certificates. Both continued to provide USTA with information about racing performances by forwarding Judge's Sheets to USTA headquarters. Each of the defendants thus enjoyed a paradigmatic "free ride," receiving all of the benefits of USTA affiliation with none of the attendant costs.

In an effort to put an end to this free riding, USTA announced to its members its intention to invoke certain sanctions. 5 It would henceforth, it said, provide no services to Fox Valley and Chicago Downs. Nor would it enter in its records information about racing performances at the defendants' meets. Finally, it directed its members' attention to Rules 5 and 17 of its by-laws. The USTA eligibility certificate application states that members are prohibited from racing horses at meets sponsored by organizations that are not USTA members or contract tracks. Members who violate this prohibition are subject to revocation of their eligibility certificates and may be precluded from obtaining certificates for future racing seasons. Rule 5, § 1. Furthermore, USTA member drivers who drive horses at unaffiliated tracks can be fined up to $100 for each infraction. Rule 17, § 5. These rules are necessary, USTA asserts, to protect its system of racing information "from those who might act to undermine it" and to ensure the "integrity of (its) data system" (Br. 14). The rules were upheld as reasonable restraints in United States v. United States Trotting Association, 1960 CCH Trade Cases P 69,761 (S.D.Ohio 1960).

II. USTA's Misappropriation Claim

In its first two...

To continue reading

Request your trial
51 cases
  • Kreuzer v. American Academy of Periodontology, 83-1394
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 26, 1984
    ... ...         Peter M. Sfikas, Chicago, Ill., with whom Robert L. Green, Washington, ... Based on this, Dr. Kreuzer asks us to infer that the ADA and the AAP must have also ...         In Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 59 S.Ct. 467, 83 ... United States Trotting Association v. Chicago Downs Association, 665 ... ...
  • Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • January 10, 1984
    ... ... , Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellant ... v. United Business Forms, Inc., 713 F.2d 1272, 1277 (7th Cir.1983); Lee v ... v. Arizona Downs, 670 F.2d 813, 818 n. 1 (9th Cir.1982), the ... See United States Trotting Ass'n v. Chicago Downs Ass'n, 665 F.2d 781, ... is unclear from the limited record before us, we know that it has no licensing function, that ... ...
  • Justice v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • November 18, 1983
    ... ... enough to require litigation." Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc., 686 F.2d ... See Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Arizona Downs, 670 F.2d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir.1982), cert ... See Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231, ... See United States Trotting Association v. Chicago Downs Association, Inc., ... ...
  • Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 7, 1985
    ... ... Christmas season by Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Inc ...         This suit centers on ... of fiduciary duty); United States Trotting Ass'n v. Chicago Downs Ass'n, 665 F.2d 781, 785 ... us directly, but for Sam Polk in regard to this ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Forms of Joint Conduct and Collaboration
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Proof of Conspiracy Under Federal Antitrust Laws. Second Edition
    • December 8, 2018
    ...rule of reason analysis of rule of physicians’ association excluding chiropractors). Accord U.S. Trotting Ass’n v. Chi. Downs Ass’n, 665 F.2d 781, 787 -90 (7th Cir. 1981); Martin v. Am. Kennel Club, 697 F. Supp. 997 (N.D. Ill. 1988); Brant v. U .S. Polo Ass’n, 631 F. Supp. 71 (S.D. Fla. 198......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Proof of Conspiracy Under Federal Antitrust Laws. Second Edition
    • December 8, 2018
    ...999 (6th Cir. 1994), 274 United States v. Young Bros., 728 F.2d 682 (5th Cir. 1984), 26 United States Trotting Ass’n v. Chi. Downs Ass’n, 665 F.2d 781 (7th Cir. 1981), 153 In re Universal Serv. Fund Tel. Billing Practices Litig., 2008 WL 4382141 (D. Kan. 2008), 298 , 299 In re Urethane Anti......
  • Self-Regulation and League Rules Under the Sherman Act
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 30-1, May 2002
    • May 1, 2002
    ...parties in the markets they serve, and whether other less restrictive means could be employed to achieve the same desired ends." Id. [175] 665 F.2d 781 (7th Cir. 1981). [176] Id. at 784. Specifically, the rules prohibited members of the Association from racing horses at meets that were not ......
  • Preferred provider organizations: An antitrust perspective
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin No. 29-2, June 1984
    • June 1, 1984
    ...Inc., 637F.2d 1376, 1381-87 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 831 (1981); U.S.Trotting Association v. Chicago Downs Association, Inc., 665 F.2d 781,787-90 (7th Cir. 1981). See a/so Broadcast Music, 441 U.S. at 8-10 (perse rule should not be applied until courts have sufficient experience w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT