One Baltas Lawsuit Against CHRB Dismissed by Judge

A Los Angeles judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by trainer Richard Baltas after the California Horse Racing Board prohibited him from making entries at tracks in California.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gail Killefer made the decision by order entered April 6 following a hearing the previous day.

The case arose when, on May 8, 2022, one of Baltas' employees was caught on videotape giving prohibited treatment to Noble Reflection  before a race at Santa Anita Park. Two days later, Santa Anita informed Baltas he was not welcome to enter horses for races at the track, and soon after, the CHRB barred Baltas from running statewide.

Then, in June 2022, CHRB initiated a formal administrative complaint against Baltas, alleging multiple violations of CHRB rules. The CHRB board of stewards held hearings spanning two months last fall and ultimately issued a one-year suspension and $10,000 fine to Baltas in their ruling. Due to reciprocity among state regulators, Baltas is also prohibited from racing outside California.

As a trainer, ultimately the person responsible for the care of his horses, the ruling stated that Baltas violated CHRB race-day treatment rules 21 times over a period between April 15-May 8, 2022, with his horses receiving "X-treme Air Boost," an equine herbal supplement, among other substances.

CHRB regulations state that "only water may be used to wash the horse's mouth on race day" and "drugs, medications, or any other substances may not be administered."

Baltas' appeal of the stewards' decision is still pending.

Rollins: Baltas Issued One-Year Suspension by Track Stewards

Rather than wait for the administrative process to play out, Baltas took CHRB straight to court with two lawsuits. The first case Baltas filed sought a stay of CHRB's prohibition order, but to no avail. The case is still pending.

The lawsuit Killefer dismissed is the second of the two. It essentially seeks injunctive relief and damages under the Bane Act, a California statute prohibiting the violation of a person's civil rights through coercion, threats, or violence.  

Killefer agreed with CHRB that Baltas' second suit does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The ruling means Baltas must first pursue his appeal of the stewards' ruling to its conclusion.

“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to resort to the courts,” wrote Killefer, quoting judicial precedent and citing a California statute. "Plaintiff (Baltas) cannot avoid the fact that the gravamen of his claims are confined to the hearing process and writ process thereafter. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust judicial remedies bars all of his claims."

Baltas defended his position by arguing he already exhausted his administrative remedies. "[T]he results are predetermined and...waiting further would be the ultimate act of futility” because “the CHRB already determined the outcome of the hearing before the hearing ever took place,” his attorney told the court.

Killefer also noted that Baltas' claim for damages is, at least now, not in compliance with California's law that sets strict limitations on seeking damages against government officials acting in an official capacity. That law confers "an absolute privilege for communications made in any legislative proceeding, in any judicial proceeding, in any other official proceeding authorized by law, or in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law," she wrote.