Albarado v. Kentucky Racing Com'n

Decision Date29 April 2004
Docket NumberNo. Civ.A.3:04CV-231-H.,Civ.A.3:04CV-231-H.
Citation496 F.Supp.2d 795
PartiesRobby ALBARADO, et al. Plaintiffs v. KENTUCKY RACING COMMISSION, et al. Defendants and Jerry Bailey, et al. Plaintiffs v. Kentucky Racing Commission, et al. Defendants
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky

Christopher Nelson Lasch, Goodwin & Lasch, Louisville, KY, Lead Attorney, Attorney to be Noticed, Lawrence Mentz, Biefermann Hoenig Massamill & Ruff PC, New York City, Lead Attorney, Attorney to be Noticed, Lloyd C. Ownbey, Jr, Pasadena, CA, Lead Attorney, Attorney to be Noticed, Michael Lawrence Goodwin, Goodwin & Lasch, Louisville, KY, Lead Attorney, Attorney to be Noticed, for Robby Albarado, Plaintiff.

Christopher Nelson Lasch, Lawrence Mentz, Lloyd C. Ownbey, Jr, Michael Lawrence Goodwin, (See above for address), Lead Attorney, Attorney to be Noticed, for Brian Peck, Plaintiff.

Christopher Nelson Lasch, Lawrence Mentz, Lloyd C. Ownbey, Jr, Michael Lawrence Goodwin, (See above for address), Lead Attorney, Attorney to be Noticed, for Shane Sellers, Plaintiff.

J. Bruce Miller, Michael J. Kitchen, J. Bruce Miller Law Group, Louisville, KY, Lead Attorney, Attorney to be Noticed, William P. Emrick, Kentucky Environmental & Public, Protection Cabinet, Frankfort, KY, Lead Attorney, Attorney to be Noticed, for Kentucky Racing Commission, Defendant.

J. Bruce Miller, Michael J. Kitchen, William P. Emrick, (See above for address), Lead Attorney, Attorney to be Noticed, for Kentucky Horse Racing Authority, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HEYBURN, Chief Judge.

The confluence of three issues of great interest to Kentuckians and Americans form the body of this case. Standing alone these issues are easily resolved. Together in one case they present difficult choices for a court attempting to protect the meritorious rights and prerogatives of all the parties which the Court now has a duty to resolve. The three issues are (1) the rights of any citizen to exercise his First Amendment rights without unreasonable government intrusion; (2) the right of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to exercise regulatory authority over its most visible and important industry; and (3) the precise role of federal courts in arbitrating a dispute in which the first two appear to collide. All this arises in the context of the world's most famous horse race, hardly the setting for calm considerations of some significance.

For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they request. Out of concern for the ongoing ability of the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority to maintain its regulatory control, the Court will limit its relief for the exercise of commercial speech to those jockeys who are Plaintiffs in these cases. The relief as to the Jockeys' Guild patch shall be applicable to all jockeys.

I.

Jockeys Robby Albarado, Brian Peck, and Shane Sellers (collectively, "Albarado Plaintiffs") and jockeys Jerry Bailey, John Velazquez, Jose Santos, Alex Solis, and Shane Sellers (collectively, "Bailey Plaintiffs") have filed separate actions against the Kentucky Racing Commission and the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority (collectively, "the Authority"). They claim that one of the Authority's regulations, 810 KAR 1:009, Section 14(3), which prohibits jockeys from wearing advertising and promotional logos on their racing attire, violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the United States Constitution. They seek a declaration that the applicable regulation is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. They also seek an injunction against the enforcement of the regulation during the ongoing races at Churchill Downs.1

Albarado Plaintiffs desire to wear a patch on their breeches that bears the name of their labor organization, the Jockeys' Guild. The patch also bears a picture of a jockey's boot, the organization's trademark, and in some cases, the picture of a wheelchair as a symbol of handicapped status. They desire to display a patch of support for the Jockeys' Guild and for the organization's efforts to improve the lives of disabled jockeys. Bailey Plaintiffs want to wear "tasteful and traditional" logos advertising corporate sponsors on their breeches and/or their turtlenecks because they have an economic interest in attracting personal corporate sponsorship. All Plaintiffs race thoroughbred horses in Kentucky and want to display the Jockeys' Guild patch or a corporate logo while they are participating in horse races during the spring meet season at Churchill Downs, which runs from April 24 through July 5, 2004.

The Kentucky legislature has passed a large body of statutes governing thoroughbred racing. See KRS 230.210, et seq. Specifically, in KRS 230.215(2), the legislature has declared:

[t]he purpose and intent of this statute in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare, to vest in the commission forceful control of horse racing in the Commonwealth with plenary power to promulgate administrative regulations prescribing conditions under which all legitimate horse racing and wagering thereon is conducted in the Commonwealth so as to encourage the improvement of the breeds of horses in the Commonwealth to regulate and maintain horse racing at those horse race meetings in the Commonwealth of the highest quality and free of any corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, or unprincipled horse racing practices, to regulate and maintain horse racing at race meetings in the Commonwealth so as to dissipate any cloud of association with the undesirable and maintain the appearance as well as the fact of complete honesty and integrity of horse racing in the Commonwealth.

Section 230.260 authorizes the Authority to promulgate regulations in support of those broad intents and purposes. And, to this end, it has promulgated extensive regulations concerning all aspects of the thoroughbred horse racing industry. See 810 KAR 1:001, et seq.

At issue here is one specific regulation, 810 KAR 1:009, Section 14, among many the Authority has established.

It states as follows:

Attire. (1) Upon leaving the jockey room to ride in any race, each rider shall be neat and clean in appearance and wear the traditional jockey costume with all jacket buttons and catches fastened.

(2) Each jockey shall wear:

(a) The cap and jacket racing colors registered in the name of the owner of the horse he is to ride;

(b) Stock tie;

(c) White or light breeches;

(d) Top boots;

(e) Safety helmet that meets the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F1163-00;

(f) A safety vest which shall meet the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F1937-98; and

(g) A number on his right shoulder corresponding to his mount's number as shown on the saddle cloth and daily racing program.

(3) Advertising, promotional, or cartoon symbols or wording which in the opinion of the commission are not in keeping with the traditions of the turf shall be prohibited.

(4) A safety vest shall not weigh more than two (2) pounds and shall not be included in the jockey's weight when weighing out to race.

(5) The clerk of scales and attending valet shall be held jointly responsible with a rider for his neat and clean appearance and proper attire.

After the 2003 Kentucky Derby, racing stewards assessed fines of $500 against jockeys who wore the Jockeys' Guild patch. The Kentucky Racing Commission upheld these penalties. Those jockeys have filed an appeal with the Franklin County Circuit Court, and that matter is currently pending. Some of those jockeys are plaintiffs in the present lawsuit. Other jockeys are participating in these federal actions because they are concerned about actions the Authority may take this year if the jockeys display a logo or a patch. The Authority has said that it intends to enforce the regulation this year.

Plaintiff Jerry Bailey was denied the right to wear a corporate logo during the spring meets at Keeneland in Lexington. In addition, at a public hearing on April 19, 2004, the Authority informed Albarado Plaintiffs that no jockey would be allowed to display the Jockeys' Guild patch or any other prohibited item during spring meets at Churchill Downs. After learning that the Authority intends to enforce the regulation this spring at Churchill Downs, Plaintiffs filed the present actions.

II.

As a preliminary matter, the Authority contends that the enforcement action pending in Franklin Circuit Court compels this Court to abstain from considering the relief requested here under the principles enunciated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Abstention is an integral component of the comity between federal and state judicial authority and is premised upon the notion that, in unusual circumstances where important state interests are at issue, federal courts should step aside out of deference to state administrative agencies or court proceedings.2 The abstention doctrine represents an exception to the general duty of a federal court to adjudicate disputes properly before it. For a whole variety of reasons, this case presents circumstances under which the Court must seriously consider the necessity and value of abstention.

The Authority argues abstention is mandatory under Younger because this federal proceeding threatens a pending state proceeding which concerns vital state interests where Plaintiffs may adequately raise their federal constitutional claims in the state proceeding. If this were so, the Court has no choice in the matter. It must abstain. See Gibson v. Berryhill, 411. U.S. 564, 577, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973). The Court concludes, however, that Younger does not govern our case.

The primary rationale for mandatory abstention under Younger is to prevent federal courts from enjoining existing state court proceedings, whether th...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • American v. Municipality San Juan
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Puerto Rico
    • December 10, 2018
    ...(2) the speech references a specific product; and (3) the messenger has an economic motivation. See, Albarado v. Kentucky Racing Com'n, 496 F.Supp.2d 795, 805 (W.D. Ky. 2004)(discussing issue)(citing Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 66-67 (1983)). Speech in aid of marketin......
  • Mcgehee v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of Kentucky
    • May 23, 2011
    ...'substantial harm to others'; and (4) 'the public interest would be served by issuance of the injunction.'" Albarado v. Ky. Racing Comm'n, 496 F.Supp.2d 795, 803 (W.D. Ky. 2004) (quoting ACLU of Ky. v. McCreary County, 354 F.3d 438, 445 (6th Cir. 2003)). The first factor requires the Court ......
  • McGehee v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'r, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-160-H
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of Kentucky
    • July 19, 2011
    ...'substantial harm to others'; and (4) 'the public interest would be served by issuance of the injunction.'" Albarado v. Ky. Racing Comm'n, 496 F.Supp.2d 795, 803 (W.D. Ky. 2004) (quoting ACLU of Ky. v. McCreary County, 354 F.3d 438, 445 (6th Cir. 2003)). The parties' arguments focus on the ......

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