Following a three-day bench trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, attorneys for Hall of Fame trainer Jerry Hollendorfer and the Los Angeles Turf Club, The Stronach Group, and other Santa Anita Park ownership entities presented almost diametrically opposed arguments about the trainer's expulsion from Santa Anita.
Closing argument briefs were filed April 21 following a bench trial held April 4-6 before Judge Maurice Leiter in Los Angeles Superior Court, and this phase of the case is now under submission. Hollendorfer, 75, has been persona non grata at the Santa Anita since he was given three days to vacate the premises on June 22, 2019.
Since his exclusion, Hollendorfer has raced horses at Del Mar and Los Alamitos Race Course in Southern California, and at tracks elsewhere in the country, such as Oaklawn Park and Monmouth Park. He contends his banishment has resulted in him training a smaller stable of horses.
Six racehorses in Hollendorfer's care died after catastrophic breakdowns between Nov. 18, 2018, and the day of the trainer's banishment, with four deaths occurring at Santa Anita and two at Golden Gate Fields, both of which are owned by The Stronach Group. The deaths occurred in the midst of a spate of fatalities at Santa Anita when, according to reports, 30 horses died between the previous December and the day of Hollendorfer's expulsion.
Hollendorfer's opening premise is that the trainer's rights under the 2019 race meet agreement between Santa Anita and the California Thoroughbred Trainers remain intact to this day so that the court can give the trainer prospective relief. Defendants counter that the agreement expired on Dec. 25, 2019; that no other race meet agreement has been struck; and that California law does not allow a declaratory procedure for a prospective race meet that would be governed by an agreement that has expired.
In recent years, race meet agreements between tracks and the CTT have often not been signed, leading the state regulator, the California Horse Racing Board, to award race dates to tracks by applying prior agreements, sometimes to the frustration of CHRB members.
The defense's opening salvo argues that Hollendorfer is not entitled to bring a declaratory rights action. In some jurisdictions, this argument is called lack of standing, and it's a threshold issue that was discussed in multiple filings prior to the bench trial.
Track ownership argues that individual trainers only have the right to contest decisions made as to stall applications, and that disposition of those disputes lies, by contract, exclusively with the Los Angeles Turf Club. But as to judicial enforcement of the RMA in the context of this case, the agreement explicitly says its provisions "are not intended to be for the benefit of, or enforceable by, any party other than track and CTT. Except for track and CTT, no party shall have the right to rely upon or enforce any of the terms and provisions of this agreement...."
The defense brief, signed by attorney Matthew Macdonald, details testimony about a three-month negotiation history between the track and CTT that preceded the striking of a deal whereby the "no third party beneficiaries" clause was agreed. Among the witnesses on this point was Alan Balch, executive director of CTT since 2010 and the principal negotiator of every RMA signed during his tenure.
Hollendorfer argues that the facial language of the clause is not controlling, citing case law differentiating between whether a party is an intended beneficiary or an incidental beneficiary to a contract. Such cases require the construction of the parties' intent, "gleaned from reading the contract as a whole in light of the circumstances under which it was entered," per a 1994 case cited in the brief. Drew Couto, Hollendorfer's attorney, cites various provisions of the RMA intended to benefit licensed trainers.
If Hollendorfer has the right to bring the case in the first place, another issue is whether CTT was required to approve Hollendorfer's expulsion.
Hollendorfer's brief points to what is called "section 5" as the crux of this issue. Section 5 provides, "Track may, in its discretion, establish rules, regulations and safety procedures that may limit or eliminate applicant's (Hollendorfer's) ability to participate in racing or training activities at track or any auxiliary training facility, subject to the agreement of the CTT. The agreement of CTT shall be a condition precedent to any execution of a decision by track to limit or eliminate applicant's ability to participate in racing or training activities at track or any auxiliary training facility."
Hollendorfer argues that section 5 not only requires CTT to approve the rules, which it did, but it also requires CTT must approve the expulsion of a trainer, which it didn't. The defendant's position is that section 5 means CTT must sign off on rules revisions before a trainer can be expelled for violating them.
Other issues raised in the briefs include whether the track's private property status enabled it to ban Hollendorfer regardless of the RMA or anything else, and whether the RMA is not enforceable to the extent it conflicts with CHRB rules, and whether CHRB rule 1989 does not authorize Hollendorfer's expulsion. The defendants make three responses: these issues are already being litigated in San Diego Superior Court in a case where Hollendorfer and CHRB are parties; Hollendorfer has no right to speak for the CHRB; and the CHRB has already determined Hollendorfer's expulsion did not violate its rules.
