In May 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the state of New Jersey in its claim that a ban on sports betting under a 1992 law was unconstitutional. Everyone knows about that case.
But another related matter has yet to be resolved. In 2014, the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association sued to allow sports betting at Monmouth Park. Because the 2018 ruling paved the way for races, the association has returned to court seeking compensation from the major sports leagues for lost revenue between 2014 and 2018.
The suit may not turn in the horsemen’s favor, according to NJ Online Gambling. The association wants to unseal depositions from league commissioners in the original case.
Early last month the leagues filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn a 2019 Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that vacated a lower court decision dismissing the horsemen’s claims of as much as $150 million in damages. The leagues argue that should the Supreme Court accept the case and then overturn the ruling, then time-consuming discovery now will prove to have been a waste of time.
The leagues also say conflicting rulings in different district circuit courts show that courts have a lot of discretion to deny recovery of a temporary restraining order bond, which amounted to $3.4 million for a four-week period before a lower-court judge sided with the leagues.
In addition, the leagues say a delay in discovery does not harm the horsemen, since sportsbooks are already offering wagers, at least they were prior to the coronavirus pandemic.
“If anything, continuing to hold discovery in abeyance benefits [the horsemen]. They will save time and expense devoted to discovery that could be moot in whole or in part,” documents said.
In the recent filing, the leagues claim the horsemen agreed to stipulations in May 2018, when they filed their $150 million damages lawsuit just 10 days after the Supreme Court ruled.
“The parties agreed that no discovery in connection with that motion would take place until the Court resolved three threshold legal issues: (1) whether NJTHA was ‘wrongfully enjoined’ as a matter of law; (2) whether NJTHA was summarily entitled to the full $3.4 million bond amount as a matter of law (without having to prove its actual damages through subsequent proceedings); and (3) whether NJTHA’s claim for ‘bad faith’ damages of nearly $150 million should be dismissed as a matter of law.”
Since not all three thresholds were met, the association violated the agreement, the leagues insist.
In this filing, the leagues still claim that the horsemen “falsely contend that they faced no risk of injury from the expansion of state-sponsored sports gambling.
“This court noted that, among other evidence, congressional studies, consumer surveys, and the fact that the State of New Jersey exempted its own colleges from legal sports gambling all demonstrated the threat of potential harm posed by New Jersey’s sports gambling proposal.”
