Exclusive--Interview with Brooks, Bulletproof attorney

WHEN WILL BULLETPROOF RACE HORSES AGAIN?

As many are aware, on Jan. 26, 2010, the Ontario Racing Commission (ORC) suspended the licenses and ordered a freeze of purse accounts of a number of people and entities, including: Jeffrey Brooks (the brother of David Brooks), Terry Brooks (the ex-wife of David Brooks), Andrew Brooks (the son of David Brooks) and Victoria Brooks (a daughter of David Brooks). In addition, the suspension and freeze also related to Perfect World Enterprises and Bulletproof Enterprises, among other corporate entities.

On Feb. 2, the USTA, citing reciprocity, imposed the same suspensions on the same entities in the United States. On or about Feb. 3, according to the complaint, trainers for Bulletproof tried to enter horses at Yonkers and Monticello in New York and were told that Bulletproof could not race horses in New York. On Feb. 18, plaintiffs Jeffrey Brooks and Bulletproof filed their federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

The plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appeal with the USTA, seeking to appeal the suspensions as to Jeffrey Brooks and Bulletproof.  On Feb. 22, the USTA announced that it would stay the suspensions against Jeffrey Brooks and Bulletproof. A USTA hearing is set for March 20, 2010.

So, with no USTA suspension in effect against the two plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit (due to the stay), when will the Bulletproof horses race again? According to Mr. Goodman, “In order to race the Bulletproof horses in New York, we still need to deal with the New York State Racing Commission. We are presently in discussions with the proper representatives in New York as to when the Bulletproof horses can race.”

WHAT IS GOING ON IN CANADA?

The USTA suspensions came as a result of reciprocity relating to the Jan. 26 order of the ORC. All of the later suspensions arise from the ORC ruling. According to Mr. Goodman, “Negotiations are ongoing in Ontario between the Commission and Canadian counsel for Mr. Brooks and Bulletproof. Potential dates are being discussed for a hearing in Ontario, but no set date has been decided yet.”

WHAT ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS SET FORTH IN THE FEDERAL COMPLAINT?

While Mr. Goodman would not talk about the specifics of the complaint, he did say, “I am satisfied that I have met all of the obligations set forth in Rule 11.”

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sets forth the duties that an attorney who signs a federal complaint must meet. Failure to meet these obligations could lead to sanctions against said attorney. Specifically, Rule 11 is entitled “Signing, Pleadings, Motions and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions.” Under the rule, in section (b), entitled “Representations to the Court,” the signing attorney essentially represents, among other things, that “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law” and that “the factual contentions have evidentiary support…”

Thus, Mr. Goodman, as the attorney who signed the federal complaint (which is a “pleading”), is comfortable that he has met all of his obligations under the federal rule with respect to this complaint.

MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES

When asked why the New York State Racing Board was not named as a party but three individual members of the Board were, Mr. Goodman explained that only individuals can be named in a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim (claim one of the complaint).

When asked if he was dealing with any New York law firm with respect to defendant USTA, Mr. Goodman stated, “No, I am just dealing with the USTA’s counsel in Columbus, Ohio.” Of course, at a minimum, the USTA will have to have local counsel in New York to appear in a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York.

When asked if he represents any of the other people or entities involved in the suspensions (Terry, Andrew or Victoria Brooks or Perfect World Enterprises or other related entities), Mr. Goodman stated that “I do not represent any of the others.”

« Back