389 P.3d 1087
N.M. Ct. App.2016Background
- Arnoldo Carrillo, a licensed trainer/owner with the New Mexico Racing Commission, had four incidents between Sept. 2012 and April–July 2013 in which his horses were injured or died while racing at New Mexico tracks.
- Zia Park, Sunland Park, SunRay Park, and Ruidoso Downs each notified Carrillo he was excluded from their premises and races, citing horse injuries/death, safety concerns, reputation, and his "record at New Mexico tracks."
- Carrillo sued the tracks (and others) alleging violation of his rights as a licensee, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and tort claims; the tracks moved for summary judgment asserting a common-law right to exclude.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the tracks, finding no genuine dispute of material fact and that racetracks have a common-law (and regulatory) right to exclude persons for any lawful reason.
- On appeal Carrillo argued that (1) a 2014 statute (Section 60-1A-28.1) or Commission regulations limited tracks’ power to exclude licensed participants and (2) exclusion in a de facto monopolistic, highly regulated industry requires due process; the Court of Appeals rejected retroactive application of the 2014 statute and found no procedural entitlement in the tracks’ exclusions.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the racetracks, holding private racetracks retain a common-law right to exclude licensees and patrons alike, but where monopoly power exists exclusions must be supported by legitimate/reasonable business justification; Carrillo failed to rebut the tracks’ proffered justifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 60-1A-28.1 or Commission regulations limit racetracks' common-law right to exclude licensees | Section 60-1A-28.1 and Commission rules restrict tracks from excluding licensed participants and grant due-process protections | The statute was enacted after the exclusions and regulations affirm, not abrogate, the common-law right to exclude for any lawful reason | Statute not retroactive; regulation 15.2.2.8(V) reiterates common-law exclusion right and does not narrow it |
| Whether privately owned racetracks have a common-law right to exclude licensed participants | Carrillo: licensees should have narrower exclusion rules because exclusion limits ability to earn a living and regulated licensees require procedural safeguards | Tracks: common-law right to exclude patrons or licensees for lawful reasons; exclusion protects safety and business interests | Tracks possess common-law right to exclude both patrons and licensees for lawful reasons |
| Whether monopoly/quasi-monopoly limits tracks’ exclusion power | Carrillo: staggered, regulated racing dates and few tracks create a de facto monopoly, so exclusions require procedural safeguards and cannot be arbitrary | Tracks: no monopoly shown; even if monopoly existed, exclusions justified by legitimate business reasons here | If a track has monopoly power, exclusions must be reasonable and non-arbitrary; but Carrillo failed to show monopoly or arbitrariness here |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given undisputed facts and alleged denial of process | Carrillo: exclusions were arbitrary, illusory, and denied process required for licensees | Tracks: produced undisputed evidence (injuries, death, national scrutiny, safety/reputation concerns) justifying exclusions; Carrillo offered no evidence to rebut | Summary judgment affirmed—tracks made prima facie showing and Carrillo failed to produce evidence creating a factual dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633 (1913) (recognizing private racetrack's common-law right to exclude)
- Jacobson v. New York Racing Ass'n, 305 N.E.2d 765 (N.Y. 1973) (virtual monopoly limits exclusion; exclusion must be reasonable business judgment)
- Cox v. National Jockey Club, 323 N.E.2d 104 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974) (quasi-monopoly during allotted dates restricts arbitrary exclusion; legitimate justification required)
- Calder Race Course, Inc. v. Gaitan, 393 So. 2d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (affirming racetrack exclusion of a trainer under common law)