A Kentucky circuit court judge said Monday he will issue a ruling by the end of the week on whether to grant a temporary injunction that would allow horses trained by Bob Baffert and owned by Amr Zedan to start in this year’s Kentucky Derby despite a ban by Churchill Downs on the trainer. Judge Mitchell Perry of the Jefferson County Circuit Court in Louisville said at a 75-minute hearing on Monday that he wanted to issue a ruling quickly on the request for a temporary injunction due to the impact the ruling might have on the Derby this year and the entrants in the race. The Derby is scheduled for May 4. Zedan filed a lawsuit seeking the temporary injunction on April 3, just days after a horse he owns, Muth, won the Arkansas Derby, which awards points toward qualifying to the Derby to the top five finishers. Muth has been in the care of Baffert, who is not a party to the lawsuit, since shortly after Zedan purchased the horse in March 2023 for $2 million at a 2-year-old sale. Horses trained by Baffert are unable to earn qualifying points to the Derby under a ban Churchill imposed on the trainer after the 2021 Derby. The ban was extended another year in July 2023. Perry said he was likely to rule as early as Wednesday afternoon, but he said at the close of the hearing that he wanted the Kentucky attorney general’s office to issue an opinion or discuss with the court whether the lawsuit filed by Zedan violated a statute approved by the state legislature seeking to curb frivolous lawsuits. Perry said that he would ask the attorney general’s office to provide that guidance at a 1:30 p.m. hearing on Wednesday. :: DRF Kentucky Derby Package: Save on PPs, Clocker Reports, Betting Strategies, and more. Perry spent much of Monday’s hearing drilling attorneys for Zedan on why the owner waited to file his request for a temporary injunction until April when it was known that Baffert had been banned through the 2024 Derby in July of the previous year. Perry told Zedan’s legal team that much of the relief they were seeking could have been issued at any point in the last 10 months after stating that the late hour of their request was putting “an incredible time crunch on everyone involved, including this court.” “You still could have come with a request for declaratory relief, have the court say there’s no basis for this” ban, Perry said. “I do that all the time. I could have done that for this.” John Quinn, one of Zedan’s attorneys, responded that the issues were not legally “ripe” until Muth had qualified for the Derby with the points he could have earned from the Arkansas Derby win. He said that until that happened, the issues were “a lot of hypotheticals on top of hypotheticals.” Perry also asked Zedan’s legal team why he did not transfer his horses to other trainers due to the ban. “It’s a hard thing to do, it’s hard for the horse,” said William Brammell, another attorney representing Zedan. “And by the way, we shouldn’t have to do that.” :: KENTUCKY DERBY 2024: Derby Watch, point standings, prep schedule, news, and more A Churchill attorney, Thomas Dupree, pointed out to the judge that Zedan was well aware that his horses would not earn qualifying points when he decided to place his horses in the care of Baffert. “He knew back in July of last year that if he kept Mr. Baffert as his trainer then his horses would not be eligible,” Dupree said. “Each time, he decided to stick with Mr. Baffert, knowing the consequences of his decision, and he now regrets that decision.” Dupree also submitted a Triple Crown nomination form to the court that was signed by Baffert for several horses owned by Zedan. The nomination form states in its conditions that the three host tracks of the Triple Crown can deny entry to any trainer’s horses “for any reason” prior to any of the three races. The form also states that the signee agrees to the rules of the association. “That’s a contract,” Dupree said. “There’s no dispute on that from Mr. Zedan’s side.” Dupree also said that granting a temporary injunction would create harm to the other entrants in the Derby. He said that if the injunction is granted, three horses trained by Baffert could potentially enter the race, which would push three horses out. The other owners “played by the rules,” Dupree said. “They competed under those rules. . . . They should not have to make way for the Baffert horses. That’s unjust.” Last year, attorneys for Baffert sought a similar temporary injunction from a federal court in Louisville, but the judge in that case issued a summary judgment for Churchill Downs and denied any relief sought by Baffert, citing Churchill’s common-law rights to exclude. During testimony in that case, the judge also chided Baffert’s attorneys for seeking the restraining order in the immediate run-up to the Derby. :: Want to learn more about handicapping and wagering? Check out DRF's Handicapping 101 and Wagering 101 pages.