Hollendorfer Files Complaint for Emergency Relief Against Pacific Racing Association


Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 4:48 pm |
Back to: Top News

Jerry Hollendorfer | Getty Images

By Dan Ross

Jerry Hollendorfer and the California Thoroughbred Trainers filed on Monday a complaint for emergency relief in the Alameda County Superior Court seeking either a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Preliminary Injunction against the Pacific Racing Association (PRA) which would permit the veteran trainer to stable and race his horses at the association’s Golden Gate Fields facility.

Just last month, a judge at the Superior Court of San Diego granted the trainer a preliminary injunction against Del Mar, giving him permission to stable and race horses under his name at the Southern California venue, the facility having barred him from doing so prior to the start of the meet.

This followed action taken by Santa Anita management back in June, when they told the trainer to remove his horses from The Stronach Group-owned facility, along with 60 horses from TSG-owned Golden Gate Fields. The New York Racing Association (NYRA) subsequently appeared to bar Hollendorfer from entering horses at its New York facilities.

“We’re trying to work it out, I can tell you that,” said Darrell Vienna, an attorney representing the CTT. “Litigation is a last resort,” he added. “We’ve attempted to do this already, to work things out. That happened with Del Mar, and it’s happened with Santa Anita and Golden Gate. But we haven’t been able to get a resolution, and so, that’s why we’re in litigation.”

The “backbone” of the CTT’s argument, said Vienna, surrounds the 2018-2019 race-meet agreement that CTT and PRA entered into in November of last year.

“The CTT’s point of view is that we believe that the Pacific Racing Association/Stronach Group has breached the race meet agreement by doing one of two things, or both,” he said. “Excluding or eliminating Mr. Hollendorfer’s ability to participate in the meeting without the consent of the CTT, and secondly, by failing to provide a timely grievance hearing. And that’s where we are right now.”

The court filing quotes language from the race meet agreement which would put the following restrictions on stall applications: “Track may, in its discretion, establish rules, regulations, and security procedures that may limit or eliminate Applicant’s ability to participate in racing or training activities at Track or any auxiliary 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,” the filing adds.

“Any difference between the race-meet agreement and the stall application, the language of the race-meet agreement controls,” said Vienna.

Furthermore, the filing states that when it comes to stalls assignments, if the trainer is “duly licensed,” the track will not discriminate in any way against that trainer “by way of any arbitrary or capricious conduct by Track.”

“If any trainer asserts that Track shall have so discriminated on such ground or grounds, then the trainer claiming to be so aggrieved may submit his claim to Track or to CTT for examination, and if CTT shall then believe the claim to have merit, CTT shall be entitled to present the merits of the grievance on behalf of such trainer to Track. If the dispute is not settled, Track and CTT agree that the matter is to proceed immediately to arbitration before a hearing officer chosen by mutual consent by Track and CTT,” the filing states.

More information to come…

Not a subscriber? Click here to sign up for the daily PDF or alerts.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.