189 Cal. App. 4th 1296
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Medici Code won the 2007 Del Mar Derby after qualifying under age, earnings, and stakes performance requirements.
- Postrace testing after Oceanside Stakes (July 18, 2007) showed clenbuterol above permitted levels; Board was notified July 30, 2007.
- A second test after the La Jolla Handicap (August 11, 2007) also showed illegal clenbuterol; results were kept confidential between Board and owner/trainer.
- Medici Code subsequently won the Derby (September 2, 2007) with a clean test; purse awarded to Medici Code ($240,000) and Glen Hill’s Augment received $80,000 for second place.
- Board had complaints against Medici Code’s trainer and owner in September 2007, removing confidentiality and triggering potential disputes over eligibility and purse distribution.
- Glen Hill filed suit in November 2008 seeking mandamus to disqualify Medici Code and redistribute the Derby purse, or to compel a hearing; the trial court initially sided with the Board but later vacated and remanded for a decision on purse redistribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 72-hour protest rule governs protests to the Stewards | Glen Hill argues 72-hour rule barred due to late disclosure. | Board contends rule satisfied or bypassed via fraud/Willful misconduct provision. | 72-hour rule can be bypassed for fraud/willful misconduct allegations. |
| Whether Glen Hill was required to protest to Stewards before seeking Board relief on purse distribution | Glen Hill could seek Board review due to purse-distribution issue and confidentiality delay. | Protests must first go to Stewards; Board lacks jurisdiction absent Stewards’ decision. | Protests must first be presented to the Stewards; Board relief requires Stewards’ involvement. |
| Whether the Board had a duty to conduct a hearing on Glen Hill’s complaint | Without timely knowledge, Glen Hill could not file a timely protest but needed an opportunity for a hearing. | Glen Hill failed to exhaust remedies and Board had no duty absent Stewards’ action. | Board had no duty to hold a hearing without proper protest to Stewards. |
| Whether Business and Professions Code section 19517 allows changing purse distribution without bypassing Stewards’ protest process | Section 19517(b) authorizes Board to redistribute purses when grounds for protest substantiated. | Section 19517(b) does not eliminate the requirement to protest to Stewards first. | Statute preserves Stewards’ role; purse-distribution changes require protest to Stewards first. |
| Whether the Board’s discretionary power under 19517(b) permits altering Derby results post hoc | Discretionary power allows redistribution after confirming grounds for protest. | Restriction to Stewards’ authority and procedural prerequisites limit Board action. | Board cannot unilaterally override Stewards’ Derby decision without proper protest and process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Clover, 24 Cal. App. 2d 210 (Cal. App. 2d 1937) (vacatur of judgment cannot alter findings of fact)
- Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc., 186 Cal. App. 4th 338 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (contextual statutory interpretation governs)
- Prospect Medical Group Inc. v. Northridge Emergency Medical Group, 45 Cal. 4th 497 (Cal. 4th Dist. 2009) (administrative agency interpretation given deference)