By Dan Ross
The Superior Court of San Diego judge hearing the case between trainer Jerry Hollendorfer and the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) has denied both writs of mandate filed by the trainer.
The two writs constituted a twisty legal knot essentially surrounding which entity–the tracks or the agency regulating California's racing industry–had the ultimate jurisdiction to bar the trainer from licensed premises in the state, a hearing for which was held on Oct. 8.
According to Hollendorfer's attorney, Drew Couto, both decisions are appealable, “and those decisions are under consideration.”
The TDN reached out to the CHRB for comment and will update as necessary.
This whole legal saga began when The Stronach Group (TSG) barred Hollendorfer from its facilities after six of the trainer's horses were catastrophically injured between December 2018 and June 2019 at Golden Gate Fields and Santa Anita, a time when the latter track experienced a well-publicized spike in equine fatalities during an unusually wet spell.
This past July, Hollendorfer reached a settlement with TSG-controlled subsidiary owners of Santa Anita Park and Golden Gate Fields, the details of which have not been publicly disclosed.
Hollendorfer has not raced or trained at TSG-owned facilities since that June 2019 exclusion.
The first of the two writs concerned the race meet agreement (RMA) inked between the tracks and the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT).
Hollendorfer had claimed that the CHRB “abused its discretion” by voting to deem the RMA in place when the trainer was initially barred from Santa Anita “expired” and “incapable of repetition” when it came to Hollendorfer's later actions through the CTT–namely, when Del Mar attempted to bar Hollendorfer from its grounds in the summer of 2019, and again later that fall when the trainer tried to enter horses at Santa Anita.
In a minute order dated Nov. 22, judge Ronald Frazier denied this first writ on grounds that Hollendorfer “lacks standing” to bring the petition.
“Any complaint alleging a violation of an RMA may only be filed by one of the contracting entities – that is, the horsemen's organization (here, CTT) or the racing association (here, LATC and PRA),” wrote Frazier.
In the second writ, Hollendorfer argued that the CHRB through its board of stewards wields the ultimate right to refuse a trainer's entries, and not the individual racing association. As such, he sought to “compel” the CHRB “to perform its mandatory ministerial” duties in deciding through a hearing whether the trainer should be able to race at Santa Anita and Golden Gate.
Frazier wrote that the court has “reviewed the lodged records and considered the arguments of counsel, and finds Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated a hearing was required pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 19573.”
In pre-hearing briefs, Hollendorfer also questioned the impartiality of the CHRB in adjudicating his case, citing email communications and deposition testimony from former board members that appeared to betray favorable attitudes towards TSG's actions against the trainer.
Frazier pushed back against those claims, writing that “regardless of the existence or non-existence of the alleged biases and conflicts of interest, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate they influenced or impacted Respondent's investigations in any way.”
Hollendorfer's case against the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club is ongoing.
Not a subscriber? Click here to sign up for the daily PDF or alerts.
