New Suffolk Downs Corp. v. Rockingham Venture, Inc.

Citations: 656 F. Supp. 1190; 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2604Docket: 1:04-adr-00006

Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire; April 2, 1987; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves New Suffolk Downs Corporation (Suffolk) seeking partial summary judgment against Rockingham Venture, Inc. (Rockingham) regarding the regulation of horse racing under the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978. Suffolk operates a thoroughbred horse racing track in Massachusetts, while Rockingham operates a track in New Hampshire, approximately thirty miles away. Initially, the lawsuit included Oak Tree Racing Association, Inc. and Breeders' Cup Limited, but these parties were dismissed, leaving Rockingham as the sole defendant.

Suffolk's claims arise from the assertion that it must provide consent for Rockingham to simulcast and allow off-track betting on certain races, specifically the "Breeders' Cup" races held at Santa Anita Park. Although the races have already taken place, the court finds that the case is not moot due to the potential for similar future occurrences, which are likely to evade full judicial review. Suffolk argues that the Act prohibits Rockingham from conducting off-track betting without its prior consent and contends that it possesses an implied private right of action to enforce the Act’s provisions. The court intends to explore these arguments while considering states' interests in regulating gambling related to horse racing.

Participation in horse racing is characterized as a state-granted privilege, subject to regulation under the state's police power due to its nature as a private enterprise and associated social issues. Regulatory authority over horse racing differs from other areas, as the state may prohibit it entirely rather than merely regulating it. Congress acknowledged the states' primary role in gambling regulation but recognized a need for federal oversight in interstate off-track wagering to ensure cooperation among states. The federal law mandates that off-track betting can only occur with consent from various entities, including the racetrack and relevant racing commissions, and details specific requirements for obtaining approval based on proximity to operating tracks. Exceptions exist for certain states with substantial on-track racing days. Enforcement of these provisions can be pursued through civil actions by designated state or racing entities, with concurrent jurisdiction in state and federal courts. Suffolk claims an implied private right of action under the federal law, citing the factors from Cort v. Ash to support its argument. These factors assess whether the plaintiff benefits from the statute, legislative intent regarding private remedies, consistency with legislative purposes, and whether the cause of action is traditionally a state concern.

Determining whether Congress intended to establish a private right of action within a federal statute that does not explicitly mention the party asserting such a right hinges on legislative intent. The inquiry begins with the statutory language, focusing on enforcement and relief provisions, followed by an examination of legislative history and interpretative aids. In this context, once a host state, racing association, and horsemen's group enter into a contract for off-track simulcasts and betting, the host state has no further interest in enforcing the Act, as it benefits those groups by ensuring adequate compensation for off-track betting operations. The plaintiff's argument overlooks that only "currently operating tracks" require approval under the Act, while the off-track racing commission must consent to betting operations. Specifically, when Suffolk denied consent for Rockingham to conduct off-track betting, the New Hampshire Parimutuel Commission's denial was subsequently challenged in court, which ruled the Act exempted such events from Suffolk's consent. Suffolk contests this ruling but the Court deems it unnecessary to address these challenges due to the conclusions reached. The legislative history does not support Suffolk's claims, particularly as damages for Act violations are not calculated based on losses within proximity to off-track betting offices but on wagers from the host association or off-track betting systems.

Congress did not intend for tracks located within sixty miles of off-track betting locations to recover damages, as evidenced by the absence of a formula for such claims in the legislation. The ruling establishes that Suffolk is not among those for whom the Act was designed to benefit, and there is no legislative intent to provide a remedy for Suffolk's claims. Inferring a cause of action for Suffolk under this limited federal jurisdiction statute is inconsistent with its legislative purpose. Suffolk also asserts a claim under Massachusetts' unfair competition statute due to Rockingham's advertising of simulcasts, but this claim is based on a violation of the Interstate Horseracing Act. Since Suffolk lacks an implied private right to pursue claims under that Act, the related claim is dismissed. The motion for partial summary judgment is denied, and the action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, the court notes that oral arguments are deemed unnecessary for deciding the issues presented, and the ruling does not address the validity of a related New Hampshire court decision, as it does not affect the resolution of the current case.