By Dan Ross
A trial on the long-gestating legal battle between trainer Jerry Hollendorfer and The Stronach Group (TSG), along with its subsidiary owners of Santa Anita Park, is scheduled for Apr. 4 in the County of Los Angeles Superior Court of California.
The bifurcated non-jury trial, however, is focused on a single declaratory relief cause of action against TSG, encompassing the proper legal interpretation of the race-meet contract between the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) and Santa Anita, and excludes some of Hollendorfer's broader causes of action.
That second part of this bifurcated trial, expected to be before a jury, has yet to be scheduled.
TSG banned Hollendorfer–formerly one of California's most prolific trainers numerically–from its facilities after four of his horses were catastrophically injured during Santa Anita's 2018-2019 winter/spring meet, when the track experienced a well-publicized spike in equine fatalities during an unusually wet spell.
In short, Hollendorfer argues in a brief, dated Feb. 25, that when TSG ejected him from its facilities in June of 2019, the company exceeded its authority as written into the race-meet agreement and as outlined in the California Horse Racing Board's (CHRB) rulebook. More broadly, Hollendorfer maintains that he was denied fair procedure when he was told he had 72-hours to vacate TSG properties after a brief and impromptu meeting with TSG representatives on June 22 of 2019.
In response, TSG maintains it has a common law right of exclusion, and that its authority was also granted through language in the stall application–an agreement between the individual trainer and the racing association–as well as through a CHRB rule pertaining to removal or denial of access. In pre-trial briefs, TSG has argued that the company twice gave Hollendorfer the opportunity to discuss his situation, and therefore, met the elements of fair procedure.
Hollendorfer has been barred from TSG-owned facilities since June of 2019–a period that has seen the trainer's fire-power decline markedly.
A court filing from late last year states that Hollendorfer's stable has shrunk from more than 120 horses in California to an average of just 10, with another 25 to 30 horses traveling between three to four other states.
According to Equibase, Hollendorfer trained 35 winners and earned $1,619,956 in prize money last year. In 2018, he trained 176 winners and accrued $7,191,756 in prize money.
Hollendorfer's legal tussle with the operators of Santa Anita dates to September of 2019, when he filed his initial lawsuit, and the following month, when LA County Superior Court denied his application for a temporary restraining order.
The plaintiff's brief summarizes the defendants' arguments. For one, TSG contends that the terms of the stall application–a document referenced by and woven into the race meet agreement–empowers them to “refuse horse race entries,” the brief states.
Furthermore, CHRB Rule 1989, concerning removal or denial of access, “provides a racing association–as a licensee–unfettered discretion to exclude any other licensees from their premises, including where such exclusion deprives another licensee of vested fundamental rights without Fair Procedure, due process, or equal protection under the law, or any other form of recourse or redress,” the filing adds.
Hollendorfer, however, asks the court to focus on a certain section of the race meet agreement “which provides that the 'agreement of CTT shall be a condition precedent' to the execution of a decision by Defendants 'to limit or eliminate' a trainer's 'ability to participate in racing or training activities' at their racetracks.”
Since the start of legal proceedings, the CTT has supported Hollendorfer's argument that he was denied due process and fair procedure.
Hollendorfer also takes aim at CHRB rule 1989, contending that the agency wields ultimate jurisdiction as to access eligibility of licensees onto CHRB-licensed grounds.
“Plaintiff contends that Defendants' interpretation of the Rule is without merit, inconsistent with controlling case law, and would otherwise constitute the improper abrogation and/or delegation of the CHRB's legislated responsibilities and duties to private entities,” the brief states.
The CHRB has taken no disciplinary actions against Hollendorfer for the fatalities in the winter and spring of 2018-2019, and he has continued to train at Los Alamitos racetrack.
A CHRB investigation into the fatality spike at Santa Anita that winter found no smoking gun. A concurrent investigation by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Task Force similarly found no evidence of “criminal animal cruelty or unlawful conduct.”
The court's ruling will have a significant bearing on Hollendorfer's broader claims for damages when he is expected to take them before a jury.
The ruling is also expected to have a bearing on the outcome of ongoing negotiations to revise the race meet agreement contract currently used in California.
Hollendorfer filed his initial lawsuit against the Pacific Racing Association–the corporate operators of Golden Gate Fields–on Aug. 12, 2019, in Alameda County Superior Court. That Court also subsequently denied Hollendorfer's application for a temporary restraining order. The trial date in that case is scheduled for Mar. 21.
Hollendorfer is also engaged in ongoing litigation against the CHRB and the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club. These cases are being heard in the Superior Court of San Diego County.
Not a subscriber? Click here to sign up for the daily PDF or alerts.
