ARTICLE
3 November 2022

Golden Gate Fields Owners Can Sue Animal Rights Group That Disrupted Races, State Supreme Court Says

AM
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

Contributor

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP logo
Allen Matkins, founded in 1977, is a California-based law firm with more than 200 attorneys in four major metropolitan areas of California: Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, and San Francisco. The firm's areas of focus include real estate, construction, land use, environmental and natural resources, corporate and securities, real estate and commercial finance, bankruptcy, restructurings and creditors' rights, joint ventures, and tax; labor and employment, and trials, litigation, risk management, and alternative dispute resolution in all of these areas. For more information about Allen Matkins please visit www.allenmatkins.com.
The state Supreme Court refused Wednesday to block a lawsuit by owners of The Golden Gate Fields against an animal rights group that allegedly recruited protesters...
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The state Supreme Court refused Wednesday to block a lawsuit by owners of The Golden Gate Fields against an animal rights group that allegedly recruited protesters to lie down on the racetrack last year and chain themselves together, briefly bringing horse racing to a halt. In March 2021, four demonstrators climbed a fence to enter the north Berkeley shoreline racetrack. According to the track owners, they set off smoke flares, then lay down with pipes connecting their arms and were not removed for hours. One race was canceled, and others were delayed. The owners, Golden Gate Land Holdings, sued not only the protesters but also the activist group Direct Action Everywhere. In their lawsuit, the owners refer to “the organization's alleged involvement in the illegal trespass, not its speech or petitioning activity,” Presiding Justice James Humes wrote in a 3-0 ruling. Michael Betz, a lawyer for the racetrack owners, said their suit poses no threat to free speech. “Free speech is very important to all of us, but it's got to be exercised lawfully,” he said after the court order. “When they entered the track illegally, trespassed, used incendiary devices, it goes beyond the bounds of what we all recognize as free speech.” And Betz said there was strong evidence that Direct Action Everywhere had promoted the protest. Read More (subscription required)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More