Simon v. Taylor (981 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 2013)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES 0. BROWNING, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants Marty L. Cope, Arnold J. Real, B. Ray Willis, Thomas Fowler, Larry Delgado, and the New Mexico Racing Commission’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and Memorandum in Support, filed November 20, 2012 (Doc. 22)(“Motion to Dismiss”). The Court held a hearing on September 26, 2013, 2013 WL 5934420. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs Richard Simon, Janelle Simon, Eric Curtis, and Jose Vega’s claims against Defendants Marty L. Cope, Arnold J. Real, B. Ray Willis, Thomas Fowler, Larry Delgado, and the New Mexico Racing Commission (collectively, “the State Defendants”); (ii) whether the New Mexico Racing Commissioners are entitled to absolute immunity from suit regarding the decision that the Plaintiffs challenge; (iii) whether the Plaintiffs have stated a claim that the State Defendants violated their due process rights; and (iv) whether the law entitles the Plaintiffs to injunctive relief against the Racing Commission. The Court concludes that: (i) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies, but it bars the Court from considering only matters that the New Mexico courts decided, not matters that only the Racing Commission decided; (ii) the Racing Commissioners are entitled to absolute immunity from suit, because they acted in a quasi-judicial capacity when they issued the decision which the Plaintiffs challenge; (iii) the Plaintiffs have not stated a claim that the State Defendants violated their due process rights, because the Plaintiffs lack a constitutionally protected property interest; and (iv) given the Court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Racing Commission, the Racing Commission’s argument that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief is moot. The Court will, therefore, grant the motion in part and deny it in part.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court takes the following facts from the Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint, filed January 31, 2012 (Doc. l)(“Complaint”), as it must when considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under rule 12(b)(6). This dispute arises out of a horse race, the All American Futurity Run, at Ruidoso Downs Race Track in Ruidoso Downs, New Mexico on September 1, 2008. See Complaint ¶ 1, at 2. The All American Futurity is widely recognized in the quarter horse racing world as the major quarter horse event. See Complaint ¶ 3, at 3. The winning horse in the event receives a purse of approximately one million dollars. See Complaint ¶ 3, at 3. The winner also receives publicity, and earns for its owners tremendous stud and breeding fees. See Complaint ¶¶ 3-4, at 3.

Stolis Winner, a horse that the Wind-hams owned and Taylor trained, just barely crossed the finish line ahead of Jet Black Patriot, a horse that the Simons owned, Curtis trained, and Vega rode. See Complaint ¶¶ 2, 9-11, at 2-3. Jet Black Patriot finished the race approximately “a neck” behind Stolis Winner. Id. ¶ 12, at 4. Jet Black Patriot was recorded as winning second place. See Complaint ¶ 8, at 3.

A licensed veterinarian collected test samples for banned substances for each of the horses that competed in the race and divided the test samples for each horse into two containers. See Complaint ¶¶ 13-14, at 4. Both of the samples taken from Stolis Winner tested positive for caffeine. See Complaint ¶¶ 16, 21, at 4-5. The rules and regulations promulgated by the Racing Commission list caffeine as a level 2 drug. See Complaint ¶ 17, at 5. The substance is banned pursuant to the Racing Commission’s no-tolerance policy for level 2 drugs. See Complaint ¶ 18, at 5-6. New Mexico officials released the race purse to the Defendants before they received all of the test results, but after the staff had received a suspicious test. See Complaint ¶ 23, at 5.

The Racing Commission scheduled a hearing of the stewards to consider disciplinary action against “some or all of the Defendants.” See Complaint ¶¶ 22, 24, at 5. The Plaintiffs were not permitted to bring their own administrative complaint against Windham and Taylor for violating the Racing Commission’s rules, because the facts underlying the violations were concealed until after the deadline to file a complaint. See Complaint ¶ 25, at 6.

After conducting a hearing on January 8, 2009, the stewards disqualified Stolis Winner and declared Jet Black Patriot the winner. See Complaint ¶ 24, at 5. The stewards entered two orders. See Complaint ¶ 24, at 5. The first order issued penalties against Taylor, Stolis Winner’s trainer, and the second order altered the winners of the race, placing the Plaintiffs’ horse first. See Complaint ¶ 24, at 5. Taylor appealed the decision and requested a de novo review. See Complaint ¶26, at 6. For the first time in New Mexico racing history, the Racing Commission appointed a three judge administrative panel. See Complaint ¶ 26, at 6.

The Plaintiffs attempted to participate in the appeal by filing a motion to appear at the administrative panel’s hearing. See Complaint ¶ 27, at 6. The panel recommended that the Racing Commission deny the motion to appear. See Complaint ¶ 28, at 6. Although the Plaintiffs demonstrated that they “ha[d] an effected [sic] interest sufficient to create standing in the case,” which is the test set forth in New Mexico Administrative Code § 15.2.1.9(C)(1)(d) for an interested party to intervene, they were prohibited from participating in the review process. See Complaint ¶29, at 6. In an effort to obtain a final ruling regarding the administrative panel’s recommendation to exclude them, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the First Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 33, at 7.

The New Mexico Assistant Attorney General prosecuting the administrative case requested that Taylor be required to post a bond in the amount of the purse that was prematurely released, and the Racing Commission scheduled a hearing on October 29, 2009, to consider this request. See Complaint ¶ 34, at 7. The Plaintiffs’ counsel attended the hearing in an attempt to have the Plaintiffs’ arguments heard. See Complaint ¶ 36, at 8. No representative from the Attorney General’s Office appeared to argue on behalf of the motion to require a bond. See Complaint ¶ 37, at 8. Taylor’s counsel appeared and vigorously argued against posting a bond. See Complaint ¶ 38, at 8. The Plaintiffs’ counsel asked to present argument, but the Racing Commission denied the request. See Complaint ¶¶39, 40, at 8.

On November 3, 2009, the First Judicial District Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari. See Complaint ¶ 41, at 8. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, because the Racing Commission had not entered a final order regarding whether to adopt the administrative panel’s recommendation to exclude the Plaintiffs from the review process. See Complaint ¶ 41, at 8.

On November 19, 2009, the Racing Commission conducted a hearing to determine whether to permit the Plaintiffs to participate in the administrative review hearing. See Complaint ¶ 43, at 9. “Plaintiffs argued state law as well as federal constitutional protections of due process.” Complaint ¶ 43, at 9. The Racing Commission adopted the administrative panel’s recommendation to exclude the Plaintiffs from the hearing before the panel. See Complaint ¶ 43, at 9.

Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a second petition for writ of certiorari with the First Judicial District Court and requested an emergency hearing. See Complaint ¶ 44, at 9-10. The state court again denied the Plaintiffs the right to participate in the administrative proceeding. See Complaint ¶ 44, at 9-10. The state court “stated during argument that it relied upon state case law that found administrative actions of this nature were quasi-criminal actions and private litigants were not permitted to participate.” Complaint ¶ 45, at 9-10.

On May 11, 2010, the administrative panel conducted an evidentiary hearing in support of Taylor’s request for a de novo review of the stewards’ decision. See Complaint ¶45, at 10. The Plaintiffs’ counsel appeared at the hearing, but the panel denied the Plaintiffs the right to participate. See Complaint ¶ 46, at 10. At the hearing’s conclusion, the administrative panel found in Taylor’s favor. See Complaint ¶ 46, at 10. For the “first known time in history, the Racing Commission was recommended to turn a blind eye to proven doping.” Complaint ¶ 46, at 10. The Racing Commission “blindly adopted” the administrative panel’s decision without evidence or serious inquiry. Complaint ¶ 47, at 10. “The Commission determined Plaintiffs were not entitled to the race purse even though ... the race rules dictated that Stolis Winner be disqualified.” Complaint ¶ 98, at 18.

The evidentiary hearing was “fatally defective in numerous respects.” Complaint ¶ 48, at 10. First, a few weeks before the evidentiary hearing, the “longtime Assistant Attorney General assigned to prosecute cases involving the New Mexico Racing Commission was removed from the case for alleged unknown health concerns,” and “[a] new Assistant Attorney General, with no experience prosecuting Racing Commission cases, was assigned to the matter.” Complaint ¶¶49, 50, at 10-11. Second, the “new Assistant Attorney General, entered into stipulations with Heath Taylor’s counsel as to various facts,” and “[a]t least one of those stipulations was blatantly false.” Complaint ¶ 51, at 11. Specifically, the State stipulated that there was no theophylline, a caffeine metabolite, in the horse’s blood at the time of the test, when the under-oath testimony from the laboratory personnel who performed the test was that theophylline was likely present. See Complaint ¶ 51, at 11. The presence of theophylline is important, because it proves that Stolis Winner metabolized the caffeine. See Complaint ¶ 51, at 11. Third, none of the sworn depositions were offered as evidence, including the testimony from the laboratory personnel that theophylline was likely present, or from other laboratory personnel, test barn staff, Racing Commission staff, and race track staff. See Comp. ¶¶ 51-53, at 11. Fourth, the State made virtually no objections to Taylor’s evidence, which was both irrelevant and not scientific, conducted no significant cross-examination of Taylor’s witnesses, see Complaint ¶¶ 58, 59, 61, at 12-13, and failed to present evidence of Taylor’s “substantial history of doping violations by racing authorities around the nation,” Complaint ¶ 62, at 13. Fifth, Taylor’s lawyers argued, without evidence, that there was a “possibility” of contamination of the horse during the race or in the test barn, and the State failed to challenge this evidence or present contrary deposition testimony indicating that there was no contamination. See Complaint ¶¶ 63, 69, 70, at 13-14.

Sixth, the Racing Commission has “never (a) imposed any other penalty other than loss of purse for a positive caffeine test, and (b) released a purse of this size without first obtaining clean drug tests.” Complaint ¶ 73, at 14. “[T]he New Mexico Racing Commission could face liability for the negligent release of purse funds should Plaintiffs pursue a lawsuit in New Mexico state or federal court,” Complaint ¶ 74, at 14, and “could avoid liability if the administrative process ‘blesses’ their behavior in this case.” Complaint ¶ 77, at 15. Thus, the Racing “Commission benefitted by not aggressively pursuing Defendant Taylor insofar as it [wa]s a way to cover for [its] serious error in releasing the race purse prematurely.” Complaint ¶ 78, at 15.

Winning the All American Futurity entitled the owners of the first place horse to a one-million-dollar purse. See Complaint ¶ 92, at 17. The second place horse owners were entitled to a purse of $285,000.00. See Complaint ¶ 92, at 17. Because of the significance of the All American Futurity within the racing community, first place horses are valuable for marketing, stud fees, and other benefits to the horse owner, trainer, and jockey. See Complaint ¶¶ 93, 94, at 17. A horse recorded as placing second in the race is substantially less valuable than the horse placing first. See Complaint ¶ 94, at 17. “Plaintiffs to this day have not had an opportunity to present their case to any tribunal much less a fair and impartial tribunal.” Complaint ¶ 99, at 18.

The Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on November 11, 2008, seeking nearly the same relief as the relief requested in the Complaint in this case. See Simon v. Taylor, No. CIV 08-0827 LY (WD.Tex., filed Nov. 11, 2008) (“Texas Complaint”); Complaint ¶ 82, at 15-16. In the Texas Complaint, however, the Plaintiffs did not name the State Defendants, but rather named only Taylor and the Windhams. On November 4, 2010, the Honorable Lee Yeakel, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, entered an order dismissing the Texas Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Simon v. Taylor, No. CIV 08-0827 LY, Order at 6, filed Nov. 5, 2010 (Doc. 1-1)(“W.D. Tex. Order”). Judge Yeakel’s order was based, in part, on the Racing Commission’s decision that no violation of the rules of racing had occurred and that Stolis Winner was the first place finisher of the race. See W.D. Tex. Order at 5. The Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Simon v. Taylor, No. 10-51148, Appeal (5th Cir., filed Apr. 29, 2011)(Doc. 1-2). On December 22, 2011, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court opinion and ordered the case dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. See Simon v. Taylor, No. 10-51148, Order (5th Cir., filed Dec. 22, 2011)(DOC. 1-3)(“5th Cir. Order”); Complaint, ¶ 88, at 16. This dismissal was without prejudice. See 5th Cir. Order at 3; Complaint ¶ 88, at 16.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the District of New Mexico, alleging that the Court has federal-question jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction over it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Complaint involves the same allegations and claims for relief against Heath Taylor, Jerry Windham and Pat Windham (collectively, “the Private Defendants”) as the Texas Complaint, but adds additional claims against the State Defendants. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Racing Commission violated the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in both its procedural and substantive aspects. See Complaint ¶¶ 153-67, at 167; ¶¶ 168-173, at 27-29. The Plaintiffs further contend they are entitled to declaratory relief: they ask the Court to declare that Jet Black Patriot won the race, and that he “is due all the benefits and emoluments that are due” the first-place winner. Complaint ¶¶ 116-17, at 21. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to issue injunctive relief: (i) an Order requiring the Racing Commission to release all relevant test results, see Complaint ¶¶ 120-123, at 22; (ii) if the Court finds the law does not entitle them to the adjudication before it, an Order requiring the Racing Commission to adjudicate their claims in a manner that honors their rights under federal law, see Complaint ¶¶ 123, at 22; (iii) regardless of whether the Court issues an Order granting the relief in (ii), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to adjudicate their claims with respect to stud fees, marketing fees, and other, benefits that the Plaintiffs would have received had the Racing Commission declared Jet Black Patriot the winner, because the Racing Commission could not adjudicate their private claims. See Complaint ¶¶ 124-25 at 21-23. If the Court awards the Plaintiffs relief from the Racing Commission, the Plaintiffs also ask for attorneys’ fees. See Complaint ¶ 126, at 23.

To support their procedural due-process claim, the Plaintiffs contend that they had a property interest in the purse, and that the Racing Commission’s individual members deprived them of that property interest without due process in two ways: (i) the Racing Commissioners excluded them from the appeal process, which determined whether the Plaintiffs would keep their winnings; and (ii) the Racing Commissioners adopted the panel’s decision overturning the Plaintiffs’ first-place win. See Complaint ¶¶ 153-161, at 26-28. According to the Plaintiffs, the due-process clause mandates that they participate and offer evidence at a hearing before an unbiased panel, and the Racing Commissioners deprived them of that right; therefore, the Plaintiffs contend, they may seek damages from the Racing Commissioners. See Complaint ¶¶ 162-67, at 28. The Plaintiffs also assert a substantive due-process claim: in their view, the Racing Commissioners’ adoption of the non-Racing Commission panel’s decision was arbitrary and conscience-shocking, and, therefore, the Racing Commissioners violated a property interest the substantive due-process doctrine protects. See Complaint ¶¶ 168-172, at 29. In their view, that doctrine entitles the Plaintiffs to recover damages from the Racing Commissioners. See Complaint ¶¶ 173, at 29.

The Plaintiffs request one of two alternative forms of relief. They first ask the Court to enter judgment

(a) Ordering] the New Mexico Racing Commission to release all those blood and urine samples taken from any horse on the day of the subject race so that they can be tested for the presence of caffeine to determine if any contamination is possible[;]

(b) Prohibiting Defendants from stating, advertising or declaring that Stolis Winner was the winner of the All American Futurity;

(c) Declaring Jet Black Patriot was in fact the winner of the All American Futurity;

(d) Requiring the Defendants to state a court has declared Jet Black Patriot the winner of the 2008 All American Futurity when inquired;

(e) Awarding Plaintiffs the difference in purse between the First and Second Place finishers at the All American Futurity;

(f) Awarding Plaintiffs the difference in value of Jet Black Winner had he been declared the winner of the All American Futurity without court intervention;

(g) Awarding Plaintiffs reasonable stud fees and other income Jet Black Winner would have earned but for the wrongful conduct of Defendants!!]

Complaint ¶ 175, at 30-31. They also propose a second form of relief:

(h) In the alternative to an award of the race purse and a declaration of the race order, Order the New Mexico [R]aeing Commission to conduct a new hearing, carried out by the member [sic] personally, that fully permits Plaintiffs to present evidence and argument in their favor and permit Plaintiffs a reasonable appeal therefrom, if necessary.

(i) Awarding the Plaintiffs their reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this suit; and

(j) Awarding the Plaintiffs such other and further relief to which they may be justly entitled at law or in equity.

Complaint ¶ 175, at 31.

The State Defendants raise four principal arguments in their Motion to Dismiss. First, they argue that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the Plaintiffs claims. See Motion to Dismiss at 6-11. According to the State Defendants, the “Plaintiffs seek review and reversal of a state administrative proceeding order which was affirmed by the State District Court. Plaintiffs also seek review and reversal of the Commission’s final decision and order. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the State District Court,” which dismissed the matter for lack of activity. Motion to Dismiss at 6. In the State Defendants’ view, therefore, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the Court from considering this case. See Motion to Dismiss at 6.

The State Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss this case for a second reason: absolute judicial immunity. In their view, the Racing Commissioners were acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, because their actions satisfy the three-part test that the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit set out in Horwitz v. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 822 F.2d 1508 (10th Cir.1987) (“Horwitz ”):

The Butz decision granted absolute immunity to administrative officials performing functions analogous to those of judges and prosecutors if the following formula is satisfied: (a) the officials’ functions must be similar to those involved in the judicial process, (b) the officials’ actions must be likely to result in damages lawsuits by disappointed parties, and (c) there must exist sufficient safeguards in the regulatory framework to control unconstitutional conduct.

Horwitz, 822 F.2d at 1512-13 (citing Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978)). In the State Defendants’ view, “the Commissioners had jurisdiction over the subject matter, were well within their legal authority and are therefore entitled to absolute immunity.” Motion to Dismiss at 10. The State Defendants argue that the Racing Commissioners satisfied the Horwitz test’s judicial-function prong “by appointing a panel of hearing officers to conduct the hearing, issuing subpoenas, reviewing all portions of the record and issuing a final decision.” Motion to Dismiss at 10. The State Defendants state, without elaboration, that the Racing Commissioners satisfy the second prong. See Motion to Dismiss at 10. With respect to the third prong, the State Defendants contend that “safeguards to prevent unconstitutional action against a party include the regulatory allowance of a request for rehearing and the ability of disappointed parties to appeal the decision to State District Court.” Motion to Dismiss at 10. The State Defendants further contend that the exception to judicial immunity for “actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction,” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991), does not apply; in their view, even if “the Commissioners did not have jurisdiction, it could not be said that they acted in clear absence of jurisdiction,” as Moss v. Kopp, 559 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir.2009), requires. Motion to Dismiss at 9-10. The State Defendants further argue that, because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not affect absolute judicial immunity, the Racing Commissioners are entitled to absolute immunity. See Motion to Dismiss at 10.

The State Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs received all the process the Fourteenth Amendment requires. See Motion to Dismiss at 11. In their view, the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim on which the Court may grant relief, because the Plaintiffs have alleged only that the Racing Commissioners violated a state statute and not any federal constitutional right: in the State Defendants’ view, the “Plaintiffs had no recognized property right that would have entitled them to intervene and participate in the disciplinary hearing against Trainer Taylor’s License.” Motion to Dismiss at 11-12. The State Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have conceded three points: first, that the hearing’s purpose was limited to disciplinary action against Taylor; second, that the Racing Commission lacked the authority to give the Plaintiffs the full relief they requested; and third, that “both the Commission and the State District Court denied their motion to intervene with the State District Court ordering that Plaintiffs had no entitlement to intervene as ‘private litigants were not permitted to participate’ in the administrative process.” Motion to Dismiss at 12. The State Defendants argue that, because the Plaintiffs were not parties to the administrative action, the due-process clause does not entitle them to due-process rights and protections; rather, the due-process clause entitles only Taylor to these protections. See Motion to Dismiss at 12. The State Defendants argue that New Mexico statutes give the Racing Commission authority only in a limited area — licensing and protecting racing participants and patrons from wrongful or unfair practices— and that the Racing Commissioners acted within this limited authority. See Motion to Dismiss at 13. The State Defendants point out that the Plaintiffs appealed to state district court the Racing Commission’s denial of their motion to intervene and argue that that appeal satisfied the due-process clause’s dictates. See Motion to Dismiss at 14.

The State Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs waived process to which the law entitled them. They first point to the Plaintiffs’ decision not to appeal the state district court’s decision affirming the Racing Commission’s decision. See Motion to Dismiss at 15. They also argue that, “[a]ssuming arguendo that Plaintiffs had standing and were entitled to the constitutional safeguards afforded parties, they failed to pursue” their rights under the Horse Racing Act, NMSA 1978, § 60-1A-1-30, and related regulations. See Motion to Dismiss at 15. According to the State Defendants, those provisions allow “a party adversely affected by [an] order to file a petition for rehearing” under certain circumstances, and they could have appealed a final order in state court. See Motion to Dismiss at 15. The State Defendants also point to a second Petition for Writ of Certiorari that the Plaintiffs filed in state court, and the resulting Writ, which said the Plaintiffs “may be entitled to the relief sought in the petition.” Motion to Dismiss at 15. The Plaintiffs, however, failed to take action on the Writ in the subsequent six; months, and a state district judge issued an Order of Administrative Closure due to “lack of activity within the previous six months.” Motion to Dismiss at 15. The Order permitted the Plaintiffs to reinstate the matter upon good cause within thirty days, but the Plaintiffs again took no action. See Motion to Dismiss at 15. According to the State Defendants, the Plaintiffs thereby “waived the right to challenge the adequacy of certain procedural rights ‘by knowingly failing to take advantage of those procedures.’ ” Motion to Dismiss at 15 (citing Pitts v. Bd. of Educ., 869 F.2d 555 (10th Cir.1989)).

The State Defendants also dispute the significance of the Plaintiffs’ criticism of the prosecutor. See Motion to Dismiss at 16. According to the State Defendants, the Racing Commission is required to consider, in reaching its decision, only the evidence that the parties present at the hearing. See Motion to Dismiss at 16. In the State Defendants’ view, the Racing Commission is not responsible for any of the prosecutor’s failings. See Motion to Dismiss at 16-17. They further argue that no evidence supports the Plaintiffs’ suggestion that, because both the prosecutor and the Racing Commission’s lawyer were Assistant Attorneys General, bias, collusion, and conflicts of interest infected the process. See Motion to Dismiss at 17. The State Defendants argue that, even if there were such evidence, “the Commissioners should not be held liable for any claimed inadequacies of either their legal counsel or the administrative prosecutor.” Motion to Dismiss at 17-18.

The State Defendants also defend the Racing Commission against the Plaintiffs’ charge that the Racing Commission was unfair and partial. See Motion to Dismiss at 18. In the State Defendants’ view, this language from the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Guttman v. Khalsa, 446 F.3d 1027 (10th Cir.2006), forecloses this argument:

The Supreme Court has established that an accusation of a conflict of interest does not trump a claim of absolute immunity. “[Jjudicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice.... ” Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12, 112 S.Ct. 286.... Only accusations that a judge was not acting in his judicial capacity or that he acted in the complete absence of all jurisdiction can overcome absolute immunity.

Motion to Dismiss at 18 (quoting Guttman v. Khalsa, 446 F.3d at 1033-34). In the State Defendants’ view, because the Complaint does not allege that the Racing Commissioners acted either outside of their judicial capacities or in the absence of all jurisdiction, the Racing Commissioners are entitled to absolute immunity from the Plaintiffs’ claims for damages. Motion to Dismiss at 19. Further, the State Defendants again point out that the Plaintiffs had alternative avenues for review of the Racing Commission’s decision, and “that the Racing Commission accepted the Hearing Panel’s proposal for decision does not establish lack of fairness or lack of impartiality.” Motion to Dismiss at 18. In sum, according to the State Defendants, “[t]he Commissioners complied with [the Racing Commission’s] statutory and regulatory obligations and should be dismissed with prejudice from this lawsuit.” Motion to Dismiss at 19

In their fourth and final principal argument, the State Defendants argue that the law does not entitle the Plaintiffs to an injunction ordering the Racing Commission to conduct a new hearing. See Motion to Dismiss at 19. Conceding that judicial immunity would not bar the Plaintiffs’ claim for prospective relief, the State Defendants nonetheless argue that New Mexico law’s injunction standard does not entitle the Plaintiffs to an injunction. See Motion to Dismiss at 19-20. First, the State Defendants argue, the Plaintiffs have demonstrated neither that they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief nor the absence of an adequate remedy at law. See Motion to Dismiss at 20. In the State Defendants’ view, the “Plaintiffs had legal remedies they chose not to pursue” — ie., state appellate remedies — and, having abandoned those remedies, they cannot now claim irreparable harm and the absence of an adequate remedy at law. Motion to Dismiss at 20. The State Defendants also argue that any injury which the Plaintiffs might suffer does not outweigh the damage that the injunction would inflict on the Racing Commission, ie., the time, effort, and cost of appointing a new hearing panel, holding a new, longer hearing, and deciding the issue again, with perhaps an identical result. See Motion to Dismiss at 21. The State Defendants further argue that an injunction would not serve the public interest, substantially because, in their view, the Racing Commission’s previous actions served the public interest. See Motion to Dismiss at 21. Finally, the State Defendants argue, in light of their other objections to the Plaintiffs’ claims, that the Plaintiffs do not have a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits. See Motion to Dismiss at 21-22.

The Plaintiffs respond to these claims in Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants Marty L. Cope, Arnold J. Real, B. Ray Willis, Thomas Fowler, Larry Delgado, and the New Mexico Racing Commission’s Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) and Memorandum in Support, filed December 21, 2012 (Doc. 25)(“Response”). The Plaintiffs first argue that Rooker-Feldman does not bar their claims, because the Racing Commission’s decision to exclude the Plaintiffs from the hearing is not a “final judgment equivalent to the facts of the Rooker and Feldman cases.” Response at 5-6. They contend that the state district court’s decision on appeal does not change this outcome, because the Order of Administrative Closure the state district court issued was for failure to prosecute, and “had nothing to do with the merit of the appeal.” Response at 6. The Plaintiffs also contend that the Racing Commission’s construction of the system is “unworkable,” because if the Plaintiffs must exhaust their state remedies and may not seek federal court review after state court review commences, they will be deprived of “meaningful federal court review.” Response at 6. The Plaintiffs continue:

Plaintiffs are claiming a subdivision of the State of New Mexico deprived them of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing. Under the Commission’s reading of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts could never be invoked to protect the constitutional rights of a citizen against the state. This outcome is exactly why the Supreme Court has invoked the doctrine so sparingly.

Response at 6.

The Plaintiffs contend that absolute immunity does not insulate the Racing Commissioners from liability, because they cannot satisfy any of the Horwitz test’s prongs. Regarding the first prong- — that the officials’ functions must be similar to those involved in the judicial process — the Plaintiffs argue that the Racing Commission did not demonstrate the key characteristics of a fair tribunal, because: (i) it excluded interested and affected parties— i.e., the Plaintiffs — from the proceedings; (ii) “the ‘prosecutors’ had an interest in the proceeding insofar as they hoped to avoid liability for their own aets[;]” (iii) “[tjhere was no meaningful discovery and available, relevant sworn depositions were ... excluded from the record;” and (iv) “[t]he state criminal investigator who always (or nearly always) testifies in these hearing [sic] was not called because her testimony would have been damaging to the state.” Response at 7-8.

Regarding the Horwitz test’s second prong — that the officials’ actions are likely to cause civil lawsuits by disappointed litigants — the Plaintiffs contend that this case is highly unusual, because the Racing Commission departed from its usual adversarial procedures, and because the Racing Commission will only rarely “conduct! ] an adjudication where their own error and the consequences therefore hang in the balance.” Response at 8. Further, the Plaintiffs argue, because the All American Futurity is unusually prestigious and victory is unusually lucrative, few litigants will be as motivated to litigate as the Plaintiffs are. See Response at 8.

Regarding the Horwitz test’s third prong — that the regulatory framework must contain sufficient safeguards to control unconstitutional conduct — the Plaintiffs assert that, because they were the only parties the Private Defendants truly injured, the Plaintiffs’ stake in the outcome uniquely positioned them to challenge the Private Defendants’ actions. See Response at 8. Further, the Plaintiffs contend that the Racing Commission stood to benefit if it concluded that Taylor had not violated its doping rules and that Stolis Winner rightfully won the race, because the Racing Commission “would not be liable for negligently paying out a purse.” Response at 8. In the Plaintiffs’ view, the Racing Commission’s interest in the outcome motivated it to “simply stage[] a review process they controlled from the beginning.” Response at 9. The Plaintiffs argue that no meaningful standards or procedures govern Racing Commission hearings, and that the Racing Commission’s ruling that the harmless error standard governs doping test results departs from its own precedent and introduces instability into its own jurisprudence. See Response at 9.

The Plaintiffs also maintain that, given the Assistant Attorney General’s conduct at the hearing and failure to appeal the decision, and the fact that the Racing Commission excluded the Plaintiffs from the hearing, “there were clearly insufficient safeguards in the administrative framework to control unconstitutional conduct and justify giving the Commission Defendants absolute immunity.” Response at 9. The Plaintiffs also argue that, if the Court concludes that absolute immunity protects the Racing Commissioners from suit for damages, the Court should not dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims against them in their official capacities, because, citing cases from the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, absolute immunity does not protect the Racing Commissioners from such claims. See Response at 10-11.

The Plaintiffs next defend their procedural and substantive due-process claims. With regard to their procedural due-process claim, the Plaintiffs describe their property interest differently than the State Defendants do: in the Plaintiffs’ view, they acquired a property interest in first-place standing and its benefits, including the purse and accompanying stud and breeding fees, as soon as Stolis Winner tested positive for caffeine and the Stewards declared Jet Black Patriot the winner. See Response at 11-12. The Plaintiffs contend that the Racing Commission deprived them of that property interest by preventing them from presenting evidence at the Panel hearing to overturn their win. See Response at 12. In response to the State Defendants’ argument that the Plaintiffs enjoyed all the process they were due, the Plaintiffs submit two arguments. First, they contend that the Racing Commission did not comply with its own rules permitting affected parties to intervene. See Response at 12. Second, the Plaintiffs argue that the Racing Commission’s decision to prevent them from intervening is separate from the argument about their property interest: that is, “[t]he hearing should not have been focused on whether the Plaintiffs had a right to be heard, but whether the taking of the Plaintiffs’ property interest was just and fair.” Response at 12. In their view, because they could not take part in the hearing, they did not receive due process, and dismissing the case “would exclude any federal court review of compliance by the state of [sic] constitutional rights.” Response at 12.

To the State Defendants’ waiver argument, the Plaintiffs respond that any continued attempt to convince the Racing Commission to allow them to participate would have been futile in light of the Racing Commission’s decisions. See Response at 13. In the Plaintiffs’ view, their cause of action accrued after two conditions occurred: the Racing Commission took away their rights, and the Plaintiffs lacked an avenue to dispute or appeal that adverse decision. See Response at 13. The Plaintiffs argue that, even if they had “filed another Wirt [sic] of Certiorari, a right technically available only to parties of the lower proceeding, there was no evidentiary record to review except the one-sided fiction put on by the State and Taylor.” Response at 13. Therefore, in the Plaintiffs’ view, their unsuccessful attempts to intervene in the proceedings and to appeal adverse decisions preserved their due-process claim from waiver. See Response at 13.

The Plaintiffs further argue that the due-process clause entitles them to a neutral decision maker, and that, “[w]ith Taylor affirmatively seeking to overturn the Board of Stewards’ [decision and the Assistant Attorney General failing to present nearly any of the evidence to defend the decision, there was little chance for a fair, unbiased hearing to take place.” Response at 13-14. The Plaintiffs suggest that, because the Assistant Attorney General represented the Racing Commission, he could not adequately represent the Plaintiffs’ position as well, given that the Racing Commission would benefit vis-a-vis civil liability if it overturned the Stewards’ decision. See Response at 14. In sum, the Plaintiffs argue that, because the Plaintiffs could not present their argument, and because the Assistant Attorney General could not adequately represent the Plaintiffs’ interests, the State Defendants deprived them of their due-process rights. See Response at 14.

The Plaintiffs respond to the State Defendants’ injunction argument by first recasting the appropriate legal standard. See Response at 15. In their view, “[i]f a plaintiff shows irreparable harm, balance of hardships and effect on public interest, the plaintiff does not need to show a likelihood of success, but must show rather there are serious questions about merits that are ripe and deserve to be litigated.” Response at 15 (citing Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir.2001)). The Plaintiffs argue that, because the Racing Commission deprived them of a property interest without due process, they suffered irreparable harm, and once the Racing Commission determined they could not intervene, they were unable to seek an adequate remedy at law. See Response at 15. Further, the Plaintiffs argue that their injury outweighs the damage an injunction would inflict on the State Defendants, because their due-process rights outweigh the compliance costs the State Defendants would incur. See Response at 16. With respect to the public-interest prong, the Plaintiffs argue that requiring the Racing Commission to release accurate test information and hold another hearing would serve the public’s interest in fair horse racing. The Plaintiffs argue they satisfy the serious-merits-questions prong, that their claims are ripe, and that “they deserve their day in court.” Response at 16.

Finally, if the Court agrees with any of the State Defendants’ arguments, the Plaintiffs request leave to amend. See Response at 17.

The State Defendants reply to each claim in turn. See Defendants Marty L. Cope, Arnold J. Real, B. Ray Willis, Thomas Fowler, Larry Delgado, and the New Mexico Racing Commission’s Reply in Suport [sic] of Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), filed January 18, 2013 (Doc. 26)(“Reply”). With respect to the Plaintiffs’ Rooker-Feldman argument, the State Defendants reply that, when the Plaintiffs failed to appeal the state district court’s decision affirming the Racing Commission, that decision became final for purposes of Rooker-Feldman. See Reply at 1-2. The State Defendants renew their failure-to-exhaust argument that “when Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their appeal of the Commission Order they have waived their right to object to the Commission’s order by not exhausting an administrative remedy that they sought and received authority to pursue.” Reply at 2-3. In their view, because the Plaintiffs did not reinstate their appeal, they voluntarily allowed dismissal, and the Order then became a final decision. See Reply at 3. Further, the State Defendants argue that Rooker-Feldman bars this case, because the relief which the Plaintiffs seek “is a direct attack on the Commission’s final decision and amounts to appellate review of that final decision.” Response at 3. According to the State Defendants, this case is similar to the Court’s decision in Braverman v. New Mexico, No. CIV 11-0829, 2011 WL 6013587 (D.N.M. Oct. 19, 2012) (Browning, J.); in their view, here, as there, Rooker-Feldman bars the Plaintiffs’ claims because the harm they allege would not have occurred but for the state court’s judgment. See Reply at 4 (quoting Braverman v. New Mexico, 2011 WL 6013587, at *31).

The State Defendants also assert that the Racing Commissioners are entitled to absolute immunity from the Plaintiffs’ claims against them in both their individual and individual capacities. See Reply at 4. The State Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have effectively conceded that the State Defendants have satisfied the Horwitz test’s first, judicial process prong, because the Plaintiffs’ arguments that the tribunal was not “fair” does not diminish their concession that the Racing Commission adjudication was similar to the judicial process. See Reply at 4. With respect to the second, litigation causation prong, the State Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs’ response itself demonstrates that the Racing Commissioners’ actions were likely to spawn litigation: if the Racing Commission had affirmed the Board of Steward’s decision, the Plaintiffs would have sued for the purse’s value — and further, Stolis Winner’s owners would have sued the Racing Commission as well. See Reply at 4. The State Defendants also contend that the Horse Racing Act’s scheme for enacting and enforcing regulations provides sufficient safeguards against unconstitutional conduct. See Reply at 4-5.

The State Defendants also contest the Plaintiffs’ conclusion that absolute immunity does not bar their official-capacity claims. In their view, insofar as the Plaintiffs seek both monetary and injunctive relief from the Racing Commission, the Eleventh Amendment bars their claims. See Reply at 6. Therefore, according to the State Defendants, the Plaintiffs must overcome not only absolute immunity, but also sovereign immunity, and they must do the latter by proving that the Racing Commission is a municipality and that it had a custom and policy to discriminate under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). See Reply at 6-7. This, in the State Defendants’ view, the Plaintiffs failed to do. See Reply at 7.

The State Defendants then return to the Plaintiffs’ due-process claims and argue that the Plaintiffs’ claims rest on the central fallacy that they had a property interest that the Constitution protects. See Reply at 7. In the State Defendants’ telling, “[o]nly if the Commission had affirmed the Board would Plaintiffs have had a property right and interest in the first place winner’s purse.” Reply at 7. In their view, this reality disposes of the Plaintiffs’ claim that the due-process clause entitled them to a hearing before a neutral arbiter, because “[h]aving no protected property interest, plaintiffs were not entitled to more due process than they received.” Reply at 9. The State Defendants also dispute the Plaintiffs’ characterization of the statutory scheme governing the Racing Commission, under which “[t]he hearing is not meant to ensure that Plaintiffs receive the monetary winnings they seek,” but to, using the Racing Commission’s licensing power, ensure fairness and protect horse racing participants and patrons from illegality. See Reply at 8.

The State Defendants also renew their waiver arguments. First, they argue that the Plaintiffs’ decision not to request a rehearing was misguided, because that process provided a direct avenue for relief. See Reply at 8. Second, the State Defendants again point to the Plaintiffs’ decision not to pursue the appeal avenue that the state court permitted them to pursue as evidence that “they failed to allow the Court to hear the matter on its merits and thereby waived any claim that the procedure failed to afford them the process they were due.” Reply at 8-9. They also dispute, without further argument, the Plaintiffs’ contention that the Racing Commission benefited from overturning the Board’s decision. See Reply at 9. Finally, the State Defendants reiterate their view that, whatever the prosecutor’s shortcomings, the Racing Commission had to base its decision on the evidence the prosecutor presented and that the Court should not hold the Racing Commission liable for prosecutorial failings. See Reply at 9.

The State Defendants also restate that the Plaintiffs still have not proved the law entitles them to injunctive relief. See Reply at 10. First, they argue that the Plaintiffs’ claims ultimately reduce to claims for money damages and that, even if those damages are difficult to calculate, the existence of a monetary remedy precludes injunctive relief. See Reply at 10. The State Defendants also renew their argument that an injunction would not serve the public interest, because endless and costly litigation would follow if race losers could sue the Racing Commission in like circumstances, and because the Plaintiffs’ quest for compensation for themselves does not serve the public interest where the Racing Commission has followed the Horse Racing Act. See Reply at 10.

The State Defendants also argue that the Court should deny the Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. In their view, the Plaintiffs have waited too long to make this request, and allowing them to add new legal theories “is unduly prejudicial to Commission Defendants, will cause undue delay and is in bad faith.” Reply at 11. According to the State Defendants, the Court should, therefore, deny the Plaintiffs’ request that, rather than granting the Motion to Dismiss, the Court should allow them to amend their complaint.

The Court held a hearing on September 26, 2013. See Transcript of Hearing, taken September 26, 2013 (“Tr.”). At the hearing, the Court asked the Plaintiffs what relief they seek; the Plaintiffs stated that the Court should adjudicate the issue, because a two-fold problem prevents a fair administrative hearing: first, the record was incomplete, because the State concealed the Racing Commission’s wrongdoing; and second, the Racing Commission cannot conduct a truly impartial hearing, because the Racing Commission may itself be liable for improper acts. Tr. at 6:2-7:25. (Court, Dunn).

The Plaintiffs argued that Rooker-Feldman does not preclude their claims, because there is no “judgment” from a state court. Tr. at 8:1-25 (Dunn). The Plaintiffs cited the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002), for the proposition that Rooker-Feldman “has no application to judicial review of executive action, including determinations made by a state administrative agency,” Verizon Md., Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. at 644 n. 3, 122 S.Ct. 1753, and argue that, if the state provides for judicial review of an administrative proceeding and there is no such review in a particular case, Rooker-Feldman does not bar the claim, see Tr. at 9:6-23 (Dunn, Court). Further, according to the Plaintiffs, the Racing Commission violated their due-process rights by simultaneously barring them from both the Racing Commission proceedings and meaningful review by New Mexico state courts. See Tr. at 10:4-13 (Dunn). The Plaintiffs argue that The Federalist No. 82 and the Supreme Court both recognized that state courts can adjudicate federal rights; in the Plaintiffs’ view, Rooker-Feldman secures state-court jurisdiction over federal claims, including, for example, a hypothetical claim by the Plaintiffs that New Mexico’s procedures violate the due-process clause. See 10:14-11:6 (Dunn). The Plaintiffs insist that — despite their failure to appeal the decision against them — the law entitles them to a federal forum for this claim, because the state courts, agreeing with the State and affirming the Racing Commission, excluded them from the Racing Commission proceeding. See 11:7-12:13 (Court, Dunn).

After the Court indicated that Rooker-Feldman may well bar this claim, the Plaintiffs retreated to their fallback position that Rooker-Feldman “preclusion” covers only what the state court actually decided, and that, therefore, Rooker-Feldman only bars reconsideration of the state court’s decision that state law did not entitle the Plaintiffs to intervene. See Tr. at 12:20-13:7 (Dunn). The Plaintiffs maintain that, because they did not present their due-process theory to the state court, Rooker-Feldman does not bar the Court from considering it. See Tr. at 13:15-14:2 (Dunn). The Court expressed its view that Rooker-Feldman and judicial immunity might block all of the claims, and again prompted the Plaintiffs to present a particularized list of the relief they seek; the Plaintiffs did not. See Tr. at 15:3-17:10 (Court, Dunn).

The State Defendants asserted three points: that there was a final decision from the state court; that the Plaintiffs clearly set out the relief they seek in their Complaint; and that Rooker-Feldman bars the Court from hearing the claim. See Tr. at 16:14-20 (Galanter). With respect to the first point, the State Defendants contended that the Racing Commissioners’ decision was final within the meaning of state law, because, as a practical matter, it resolved all issues arising from the dispute; in the State Defendants’ view, the Plaintiffs abandoned their appeal after they predicted that the state court would not permit them to intervene. See Tr. at 19:6-20:10 (Galanter). Further, the State Defendants maintain that, under the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Guttman v. Khalsa, a judgment is considered final if the state-court action has reached a point where neither party seeks further action; in this case, the State Defendants argue, when the time to file a notice of appeal expired without the Plaintiffs seeking further action, the Racing Commission’s decision became final. See Tr. at 20:15-24 (Galanter). While conceding that the state court’s decision was not a hearing of the case’s merits, the State Defendants nonetheless insist that the Plaintiffs abandoned their appeal. See Tr. at 21:25-26:4 (Galanter).

The State Defendants then turned to the Plaintiffs’ relief. In the Defendants’ telling, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare Jet Black Patriot the winner, to bar the State Defendants from stating that Stolis Winner was the winner, and to require them to convey the Court’s declaration that Jet Black Patriot won. See Tr. at 21:5-22:14 (Galanter, Court). In the State Defendants’ view, the Court could grant that relief only by overturning the Racing Commission’s decision. See Tr. at 21:5-22:14 (Galanter, Court). Further, the State Defendants argued that state law permitted the Racing Commission to appoint the hearing panel, and that the decision becomes final once a person entitled to appeal it — here, Taylor — does so. See Tr. at 22:15-24:3 (Galanter).

The State Defendants then argued that Rooker-Feldman bars the claim. Citing Tenth Circuit case law, the State Defendants contend that Rooker-Feldman protects state court judgments from impermissible appellate review by the lower federal courts by excluding from federal court review claims that were inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment. See Tr. at 24:13-25:8 (Galanter, Court). The Court suggested that Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 282, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), called the Tenth Circuit’s inextricably-intertwined analysis into question; the State Defendants argued that Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. stands for the principle that Rook-er-Feldman applies only if the state case is final before the state court loser initiates federal-court proceedings. See Tr. at 24:9-25:23 (Galanter, Court). The State Defendants argued that Verizon Maryland v. Public Service Commission of Maryland should not apply and repeated their waiver argument in support of that conclusion. See Tr. at 16:24-17:25 (Court, Galanter). In response to the Plaintiffs’ argument about the scope of Rooker-Feldman “preclusion,” the State Defendants argued that only the second writ was limited to the question of intervention and suggested that a third writ covered other matters; the State Defendants did not clearly identify this third writ’s topics, but instead argued that the administrative process governed only the Racing Commission’s relationship to licensees and not private parties’ rights. See Tr. at 28:1-29:5 (Court, Galanter). The State Defendants also cited the Court’s decision in Braverman v. New Mexico for the principle that Rooker-Feldman bars a plaintiffs claims if the harm alleged would not have occurred but-for the state court judgment and argued that the only way that the Court could give the Plaintiffs the relief they seek is by overturning the state Racing Commission’s decision, which the state district court’s decision, in their view, made final. See 29:14-30:1 (Galanter).

The Plaintiffs also argued that, in the alternative to the purse and declaratory relief, their Complaint asked the Court to order the Racing Commission to conduct a new hearing at which they could present evidence to the members personally. See Tr. at 30:19-31:12 (Dunn). The Plaintiffs also emphasized their belief that they will not receive a fair hearing before the Racing Commission. See Tr. at 30:13-19 (Dunn). The Court returned the Plaintiffs to Rooker-Feldman, asking if, by doing what they ask, the Court would be overturning the New Mexico agency or court. See Tr. at 31:20-32:1 (Court). The Plaintiffs conceded that the Court would be doing that, but argued that it would be entirely within its power to do so, because of the due-process flaws which the Plaintiffs identified. See Tr. at 32:2-10 (Dunn). The Court suggested that Rooker-Feldman barred merits consideration of the due-process claims; the Plaintiffs argued that Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. altered this understanding, and, further, that Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. involved parallel proceedings over identical subjects, while the state court judgment in this case decided only the intervention issue. See Tr. at 32:11-34:4 (Court, Dunn). With respect to exhaustion, the Plaintiffs argued that, even had they appealed the state court judgment, the state courts still would not have entered a final judgment on the due-process issues which they presented to the Court. See Tr. at 35:5-12 (Dunn).

The Plaintiffs then turned to judicial immunity and relied principally on the Horwitz test’s third prong — whether the regulatory scheme included sufficient safeguards to avoid unconstitutional conduct. See Tr. at 35:16-36:3 (Dunn). In the Plaintiffs’ view, this issue is a fact one, and there were not sufficient safeguards, for essentially the reasons they offer in their brief. See Tr. at 36:3-16 (Dunn). The Plaintiffs also argued that they are not seeking damages against the Racing Commissioners individually, and would agree to dismiss without prejudice any such claims. See 36:17-38:8 (Dunn, Court). After an extended discussion about the implications of sovereign immunity for the Plaintiffs’ claims against the State Defendants, the Plaintiffs suggested that they would consider abating their claims against the State Defendants, because their claims against the Private Defendants might make them whole. See Tr. at 38:9-41:7 (Court, Dunn).

The State Defendants did not agree to abating, stating that they preferred a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. See Tr. at 41:12-42:5 (Court, Galanter). Citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., the State Defendants reiterated their argument that the Plaintiffs presented the substance of their claims, including arguments drawn from federal and state constitutional law, to the state tribunals, and that the tribunals rejected those claims. See Tr. at 42:6-43:13 (Galanter). The Court asked whether Rooker-Feldman would bar the Plaintiffs’ procedural due-process claim as well; the State Defendants answered that it would, because they still seek to undo a final state-court decision. See Tr. at 44:14-45:1 (Court, Galanter).

The Court indicated it was inclined to find that Rooker-Feldman precludes the declaratory- and injunctive-relief claims, but that it does not preclude their due-process claims, because those claims do not require the Court to overturn a state tribunal’s decision. See Tr. at 46:2-21 (Court). The Private Defendants tentatively suggested that Rooker-Feldman might preclude the due-process claim as well, for the reasons that underlie the State Defendants’ waiver argument. See Tr. at 47:12-50:11 (Lindenberger, Court).

Before the State Defendants turned to their judicial-immunity argument, the Court suggested that it would dismiss under the Eleventh Amendment any official-capacity claims against the Racing Commissioners and the Racing Commission for damages. See Tr. at 51:17-52:8 (Galanter, Court). The State Defendants argued that, at bottom, the Plaintiffs’ argument is simply a disagreement with the Racing Commission’s decision, and, for substantially the reasons in their brief, the Racing Commissioners are entitled to judicial immunity. See Tr. at 52:13-57:9 (Court, Galanter).

The Plaintiffs asserted that, for judicial immunity to shield them from suit, the State Defendants must prove that there are sufficient safeguards in the regulations to avoid unconstitutional conduct and that the State Defendants have not done so here. See Tr. at 57:13-58:7 (Dunn, Court). The Plaintiffs conceded that they are not complaining about the statutory and regulatory scheme itself, but only about the state tribunals’ application of that scheme to their case; the Plaintiffs denied that they are bound to pursue this claim only th