Attorneys Spar, Hollendorfer Trial Postponed

After attorneys for trainer Jerry Hollendorfer and entities of The Stronach Group appeared for a pre-trial conference Feb. 7, an order prepared by Judge Maurice A. Leiter directed a one-month postponement of the trial originally set for Feb. 14.

Department 54 of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, where the case is pending, has a procedure called "tentative rulings." Leiter made three of them last week that would, if he stays the course, deny TSG motions for summary adjudication on three of the claims asserted by Hollendorfer, including a claim alleging that two important California tracks and other entities conspired to block the trainer from engaging in racing in violation of state antitrust law.

Under court rules TSG was allowed a hearing Monday to argue that the motions should be granted on grounds that the three claims are meritless and should be dismissed without being heard by a jury. Leiter took all three matters under submission, according to a "minute order" entered into record after Monday's hearing. The same order directed the trial be continued.

Cartwright Act Claim

The Cartwright Act is California's antitrust statute. Among Hollendorfer's claims is one that Santa Anita Park officials violated the Act by conspiring with Del Mar, Thoroughbred Owners of California, the Pacific Racing Association, and Pacific Racing Association II to exile Hollendorfer, in the words of the tentative ruling, "from their facilities and organizations, and to deny Plaintiff access to stabling, training, and races." 

Citing conflicting evidence on the issue, Leiter's tentative ruling, if made final, would deny TSG's motion to throw out the Cartwright Act claim. He wrote that a jury "could find defendants and the other racetracks/associations coordinated and cooperated with each other to ban plaintiff."

Declaratory Judgment Claim

In the tentative rulings, Leiter recited as factual background that Hollendorfer claims TSG and its ownership entities banned the trainer from Santa Anita and Golden Gate Fields without requisite due process required by the Race Meet Agreement between California Thoroughbred Trainers and TSG.

TSG's motion sought dismissal of a claim for declaratory judgment based on the terms of the Race Meet Agreement and rules of the California Horse Racing Board. This claim, as framed by Hollendorfer's legal team, is separate from the trainer's claim that he was not accorded fair procedure under California law.

DOWNEY: Hollendorfer, Stronach Group Poised to Battle in Court

TSG argued that Hollendorfer isn't entitled to seek declaratory relief under the RMA because he is not a party to the agreement and because the agreement specifically states it is not intended to benefit third parties. Plaintiff responded that Thoroughbred trainers comprise the membership of CTT, "which is statutorily authorized to negotiate with racetracks for the safety and welfare of its members."

Leiter tentatively ruled that the issue of whether the parties to the RMA intended individual CTT members to be third-party beneficiaries of the RMA is a question to be decided by the jury, meaning that interpretation of the RMA is a question of fact, not a question of law. Questions of law are decided by judges, not juries.

Leiter also tentatively ruled that Hollendorfer could seek a declaration of rights regarding the applicability and effect of CHRB rules on the RMA.

Negligence Claim

One of Hollendorfer's claims, in Leiter's words, "is entitled 'negligence' and asserts approximately 16 allegedly negligent acts. One of those acts is 'creating false impressions and light relating to plaintiff's competency as a safe and accomplished horseman.'" 

TSG's motion for summary judgment asserts that the plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action for "negligent false light" as a matter of law, but Hollendorfer's position is that he did not make a separate claim for the tort of false light in the first place in this count.

Leiter tentatively ruled that Hollendorfer did not allege "the elements of false light. There is no distinct claim for false light to be separated out and addressed in a motion for summary adjudication."

Equitable Remedies and Motions in Limine

After taking the summary judgment motions under submission, the minute order directs attorneys for both sides to confer about "how the equitable causes of action will be tried." In an equitable action, among other things a judge, not a jury, may enter an order of injunctive relief requiring a party to refrain from doing a particular act or to perform a particular act.

Equitable remedies weren't mentioned in trial briefs filed last week, and BloodHorse reported Sunday the case in its current posture does not encompass an effort for Hollendorfer to be readmitted to Santa Anita. In Monday's minute order, Leiter ordered briefs on said issues to be filed by Feb. 25. 

Hollendorfer's prior pleas to be readmitted to Santa Anita were rejected by Superior Court in September 2019, February 2020, and November 2021. If Hollendorfer is granted equitable relief to re-enter Santa Anita at this point, how that would affect his claims for future monetary damages, if at all, remains to be seen.

TSG's attorneys filed multiple motions in limine to preclude or limit expected testimony of several witnesses. In Monday's minute order, Leiter directed the parties to "meet and confer" about those motions as well as an extensive witness list that mentions 60 people whose testimony would take an estimated 88 hours.

New Trial Date

Leiter ordered the trial to commence at 9:30 a.m. PT, March 14 in Los Angeles at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, which is a busy place. According to Wikipedia, the building has 100 courtrooms and in normal times has 840 daily workers and 7,000 daily visitors.

Lead attorneys are Drew Couto for Hollendorfer and Luis Li for the TSG entities.