Equine Law Matter - Closed - Get Information, Read Court Documents

ABRAHAM & VENEKLASEN JOINT VENTURE; ABRAHAM EQUINE INCORPORATED; JASON ABRAHAM, v. AMERICAN QUARTER HORSE ASSOCIATION.

No. 13-11043
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
Pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 26.1 and 5th CIR. R. 28.2.1, Appellant American
Quarter Horse Association offers this Certificate of Interested Persons.
(1) Number and Style of the Case: Case No. 13-11043; Abraham &
Veneklasen Joint Venture; Abraham Equine Incorporated; Jason Abraham v.
American Quarter Horse Association.
(2) The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed
persons and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an
interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that
the judges of this Court may evaluate possible disqualifications or recusal.
Appellant: American Quarter Horse Association
Counsel for Appellant: David E. Keltner
Marianne M. Auld
Mary H. Smith
Appellees: Abraham & Veneklasen Joint Venture
Abraham Equine, Incorporated
Jason Abraham
Counsel for Appellees: Nancy J. Stone
Samuel L. Stein
Ron Nickum
/s/
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellant American Quarter Horse Association (“AQHA”) believes that the
Court’s decisional process would be aided significantly by oral argument.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the District Court’s judgment should
be reversed because, as a matter of law, (1) no concerted agreement existed
among separate economic actors pursuing separate economic interests, (2)
neither evidence nor law supports a finding that “elite Quarter Horses”
constitutes a relevant product market, and (3) AQHA’s decision not to
register cloned Quarter Horses and their offspring caused no actual injury to
competition.
2. Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the District Court’s judgment should
be reversed because, as a matter of law, (1) neither evidence nor law
supports a finding that “elite Quarter Horses” constitutes a relevant product
market, (2) AQHA has no power to control price or competition in any
market, and (3) AQHA’s decision not to register cloned Quarter Horses and
their offspring has a rational business purpose.
3. Under the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act, the elements of which
are the same as a comparable violation of the Sherman Act, the District
Court’s judgment should be reversed because no evidence supports
Appellees’ claims under the Sherman Act.
4. The District Court’s judgment should be reversed because it contravenes the
non-intervention doctrine by granting injunctive relief that requires AQHA
to adopt and incorporate specific language into its rules to accomplish the
registration of cloned horses and their offspring.
continued in court document below

View AQHA’s Notice of Appeal

View AQHA Brief

View AQHA Record Excerpts

View Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae

View Brief of Amici Curiae

View Brief of Appellees

View Appellees’ Supplemental Record Excerpts

View Reply Brief of Appellant 

View Order  

Judgement in favor of AQHA, lower court decision reversed

 

October 2015

Appeals court denies plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing

AQHA Victorious in Cloning Lawsuit

 

 

Plaintiffs: AQHA Cloned Horse Ban is Abuse of Monopoly

Trial Begins, Seeking AQHA Registration for Clones

Jury Rules in AQHA Cloning Case  

AQHA Says Cloning Fight Isn’t Over  

Judge Tells AQHA to Register Clones

AQHA Must Pay $900K for Plaintiffs’ Cloning Legal Fees

AQHA Makes Way for Clones

AQHA Seeks Stay of Cloning Registration 

AQHA Files Notice of Appeal in Cloning Case

Appellate Court: AQHA Can Ban Cloned Horses  

AQHA Victorious in Cloning Lawsuit