Gary and Mary West filed a notice of appeal in federal court Nov. 26 to challenge the Nov. 15 dismissal of their lawsuit that sought to overturn the controversial disqualification of Maximum Security (New Year's Day) in the GI Kentucky Derby.
The primary purpose of a notice of appeal is to ensure a timely filing, so generally these types of legal documents are limited to who is appealing, what order or judgment is being appealed, and the court to which the appeal is being taken.
As such, the one-paragraph document filed in United States District Court (Eastern District of Kentucky, Lexington Division) reads in its entirety:
“Come the Plaintiffs, Gary and Mary West, by counsel, and hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the Memorandum Opinion and Order (D.E. 31) and Judgment (D.E. 32) entered on November 15, 2019, granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Hearing on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.”
In the May 4 Derby, Maximum Security led almost every step and crossed the wire first. But the Churchill Downs stewards judged that he fouled Long Range Toddy (Take Charge Indy) and placed him behind that rival in 17th place. Country House (Lookin At Lucky), who crossed the wire second, was elevated to first place via the DQ process and has been recognized as the official Derby winner since the day of the race.
The Wests' May 14 suit claimed that they were denied their allegedly rightful part of the $1,860,000 share of the Derby purse “as well as a professional accomplishment that any horseman would cherish for life, plus the very substantial value that a Kentucky Derby winner has as a stallion.” They asked the federal court to declare Maximum Security as the official winner.
The defendants–the three stewards plus the executive director and board members of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission–motioned on June 8 for the court to dismiss the case.
On Nov. 15, judge Karen Caldwell wrote in her 29-page opinion and order that “The Wests ask[ed] this Court to reverse that decision and to also find that the decision violated their constitutional rights to due process. Kentucky's regulations make clear that the disqualification is not subject to judicial review. Further, the disqualification procedure does not implicate an interest protected under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, the Court must grant the motion to dismiss.”
Not a subscriber? Click here to sign up for the daily PDF or alerts.
