A federal judge from the District of New Jersey has denied a trainer’s bid for a preliminary injunction, which would have allowed the trainer to continue to train horses at a New Jersey racetrack.
Plaintiff Lou Pena argued that the decision of a management company, NMR, to bar him from the Meadowlands Racetrack was tantamount to state action, and thus improper. The court disagreed, finding that NMR was “exercising its common law right, as a private operator of a horse-racing facility. See Martin v. Monmouth Park Jockey Club, 145 F. Supp. 439 (D.N.J. 1956), aff’d, 242 F.2d 344 (3d Cir. 1957).
“Thus, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that his exclusion resulted from state action. The plaintiff fails to meet his burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits, precluding the entry of preliminary injunctive relief.”
By way of background, the court noted that “Pena has enjoyed a 20-year career as a trainer of standard bred, harness racing horses, and was named as a top trainer at the Meadowlands and Yonkers Racetracks in 2010 and 2011. He holds a valid training license in New Jersey, where such licenses are issued by the New Jersey Racing Commission. Pena has been very financially successful in his profession, earning approximately $15 million in purses over the past two years.”
Meadowlands, meanwhile, is owned by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority (NJSEA), a New Jersey State agency. However, management of the racetrack was transferred to NMR, a private company, beginning in December of 2011.
Of significance, the lease gave the NMR “the authority to permit or deny the participation of owners, drivers, trainers and other Persons” at the Meadowlands racetrack.
Individual defendant Peter J. Koch was hired as the Director of Racing and Racing Secretary for NMR. As part of the transition, Koch required that all trainers submit an application if they wanted to race a horse at Meadowlands. The plaintiff did this. But Koch denied his application, noting that it is “not in the best interest of the ownership of the facility.”
Based on Koch’s decision, the plaintiff sued claiming the decision was “not authorized by statute, and was a violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” wrote the court. He also claimed “that his exclusion is tantamount to a revocation or suspension of his license, and will devastate his business reputation.” Thus, he sought injunctive relief.
In its analysis, the court began by noting that the plaintiff “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008).
It then, looked at the plaintiff’s specific argument, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, “that his summary exclusion from Meadowlands without a hearing violates his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The rationale for the plaintiff’s argument was that: “1) there is a symbiotic relationship between the state and the racetrack, particularly given that a state entity leases the land and facility to NMR; 2) there is a ‘close nexus’ between the exclusion of the plaintiff and the state, because the exclusion was ‘on behalf of the NJSEA,’ and pursuant to an agreement between NMR and the NJSEA.”
The court wrote that “both arguments fail.” On the first point, just because the racetrack is owned by the state, but leased to a private company “does not give rise to wholesale government responsibility for the actions taken by a . . . private tenant. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Berger, 894 F.2d 61, 67 (3d Cir. 1990). State action will only be recognized ‘where the public might reasonably conclude from the relationship that the government has lent its support to the private entity’s actions.’ Crissman, 289 F.3d at 243 (quoting Gannett, 894 F.2d at 67). The 31-year lease agreement between NJSEA and NMR indicates that, although New Jersey remains the owner of the racetrack, operation of the racetrack is in the hands of NMR.”
The court continued that the plaintiff “has failed to show a close nexus between his exclusion from the Meadowlands, and the State of New Jersey, because he has failed to *produce evidence of any direct participation by state officials in the exclusionary decision.”
Lou Pena v. New Meadowlands Racetrack LLC, et al..; D.N.J.; Civil Action No. 12-2 (SRC); 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4257; 1/10/12
Attorneys of record: (for plaintiff) Christopher Paul Midura, Erica Susan Helms, Karen A. Confoy, Sterns & Weinroth PC, Trenton, NJ. (for defendant) Angelo Joseph Genova, Lead Attorney, Akinyemi T. Akiwowo, Genova Burns & Giantomasi, Newark, NJ; James Bucci, Genova, Burns & Giantomasi, Camden, NJ. Frederick W. Alworth, Lead Attorney, Elyssa Kay, Gibbons PC, Newark, NJ.
