9th Circuit revives suit to register racehorse as 'Malpractice Meuser,' thought to be lawyer jab
A racehorse owner who claims that a First Amendment right to register the name of his thoroughbred as “Malpractice Meuser” can proceed with his federal lawsuit as a result of a federal appeals court’s decision. (Image from Shutterstock)
A racehorse owner who claims that a First Amendment right to register the name of his thoroughbred as “Malpractice Meuser” can proceed with his federal lawsuit as a result of a federal appeals court's decision.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco ruled for plaintiffs Jerry Jamgotchian and Theta Holdings in a Feb. 26 decision.
Law360 has coverage, while the Legal Profession Blog published opinion highlights.
“Malpractice Meuser” is a name apparently inspired by a Kentucky lawyer, according to prior coverage by the Louisville Courier Journal.
The 9th Circuit said a decision against Malpractice Meuser by the California Horse Racing Board did not bar the federal court suit alleging a First Amendment violation under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. The decision was written by Judge Daniel A. Bress, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.
Horses are barred from racing in California unless they are registered with a private group called the Jockey Club of New York. The group refused to register Malpractice Meuser, citing a rule that bars horse names “designed to harass, humiliate or disparage a specific individual.”
The Jockey Club of New York thought that Malpractice Meuser was named after a Kentucky equine lawyer who is an attorney for racehorse trainer Bob Baffert, according to the Louisville Courier Journal. Jamgotchian also named one of his horses “Bad Test Bob,” apparently referring to positive drug tests for Baffert’s top horses.
The California Horse Racing Board had affirmed that Malpractice Meuser could not race in the state unless registered by the Jockey Club of New York. The board also ruled that it had no jurisdiction to decide Jamgotchian’s First Amendment claim.
The racing board proceedings don’t bar the Section 1983 case because the board lacked jurisdiction to decide the First Amendment issues, the 9th Circuit said. Jamgotchian didn’t seek review of the racing board decision in state court, but that didn’t bar the federal suit, either, the appeals court said.
The appeals court added that it was not reaching other arguments by the defendants.
The Louisville Courier Journal described Jamgotchian as “a man whose principles outweigh his profit motive, and an adversary with the perseverance of a pit bull.”
“This is just the right thing to do,” Jamgotchian told the Louisville Courier Journal. “People should have the right to name whatever they want, as long as it’s not obscene. You want to take a shot at somebody, take a shot at somebody.”
The case is Jamgotchian v. Ferraro.
