Skip to content
LPBN-Icon-v1 (1)
Legal Profession Blog
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Naming Rights

By Michael Frisch

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a case involving the right to name a horse

Plaintiffs Jerry Jamgotchian and Theta Holdings I (collectively, Jamgotchian) own a thoroughbred racehorse named Malpractice Meuser. California law requires that all thoroughbreds racing in California be registered with a private organization called the Jockey Club of New York. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 19416; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 4, § 1588(a)(1). Jamgotchian wanted to race Malpractice Meuser in California, so he applied to register the horse with the Jockey Club.

The Jockey Club refused registration. It concluded that the name Malpractice Meuser violated the Principal Rules and Requirements of the American Studbook Rule 6.F.11, which makes ineligible for use horse names “designed to harass, humiliate, or disparage a specific individual.” The Jockey Club believed that Malpractice Meuser was named for Michael D. Meuser, a Kentucky lawyer specializing in equine law. The Club instructed Jamgotchian to seek registration for the horse under a different name.

Plaintiff nonetheless tried to race the horse under his favored name; refusal triggered this litigation.

Jamgotchian appealed the Stewards’ decision to the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB), the state agency responsible for administering “all laws, rules, and regulations affecting horse racing.”

And lost

Adopting a hearing officer’s written ruling, the CHRB affirmed the Stewards’ determination that Malpractice Meuser could not race absent Jockey Club registration. The CHRB also offered commentary on why it believed that Jamgotchian’s constitutional claims were not colorable.

The court

For the foregoing reasons, the CHRB’s decision does not preclude Jamgotchian’s § 1983 claims. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Given our decision on preclusion, we do not reach Jamgotchian’s argument that he had no available § 1094.5 writ remedy in state court. Nor do we reach the defendants’ alternative arguments for affirmance, which the district court has yet to consider.