San Luis Rey Racing, Inc. v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd.
15 Cal. App. 5th 67
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- In 1990 California enacted statutes (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 19607, 19607.1) creating a fund, managed by a committee of race associations and horsemen, to reimburse race associations for incremental costs of off‑site stabling (stabling and vanning fund).
- San Luis Rey Racing, Inc. (SLRR) operated an auxiliary stabling facility but did not conduct races and therefore did not contribute to or have an express statutory right to reimbursements from the fund.
- Following declining revenues, the fund management organization stopped reimbursing SLRR (and another facility) while continuing reimbursements to two race associations’ facilities; SLRR filed grievances with the CHRB and then sued in superior court seeking mandamus and other relief.
- The CHRB audited the fund, appointed a referee (Chaney) whose proposed decision found largely lawful use of the fund (with limited exceptions), and the CHRB’s Legislative, Legal and Regulations Committee (LLRC) and the CHRB adopted recommendations; SLRR participated at times but did not obtain the relief it sought.
- The superior court denied SLRR’s amended writ petition, holding SLRR lacked standing because it had only an indirect, competitive interest in fund disbursements; the court alternatively held SLRR’s challenge to the CHRB final order was time‑barred under the 30‑day statute. SLRR appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek writ of mandamus under CCP §1085 | SLRR: has direct, substantial interest because CHRB supervision and fund disbursements affect its ability to compete for stabling revenue | CHRB: SLRR is not a race association, has only an indirect competitive interest, and statutes do not give SLRR a right to fund payments | Held: SLRR lacks standing—only an indirect competitive interest insufficient for writ relief |
| Applicability of Waste Management / Save the Plastic Bag precedent | SLRR: Save the Plastic Bag disapproved Waste Management's standing analysis, so it preserves SLRR's challenge | CHRB: Waste Management remains instructive for direct‑beneficial‑interest standing; Save the Plastic Bag only addressed citizen‑action rule for corporations | Held: Court applies Waste Management framework for beneficial‑interest standing; Save the Plastic Bag does not undermine that analysis here |
| Whether CHRB final order challenge was timely under §19463 (30‑day limit) | SLRR: superior court retained jurisdiction from earlier proceedings; or statutory limitations inapplicable when agency acted without authority | CHRB: SLRR failed to file within 30 days of the CHRB's final order; affirmative defense preserved below | Held: Even if SLRR had standing, its challenge to CHRB's April 28 final order was untimely and thus waived/time‑barred |
| Whether alleged contracts or license listings gave SLRR a direct contractual right to reimbursement | SLRR: prior contracts and license applications show entitlement or expectation of payment | CHRB: Record contains no enforceable post‑2009 contracts obligating race associations or CHRB to use/pay for SLRR stalls; any remedy would be for contract breach | Held: No contractual right shown; at best SLRR had a contractual remedy (not pursued), not standing to compel agency action |
Key Cases Cited
- Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. County of Alameda, 79 Cal.App.4th 1223 (appellate court) (private competitor lacked direct beneficial interest; competitive injury too indirect for mandamus)
- Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, 52 Cal.4th 155 (Cal.) (clarified public‑interest/citizen‑action standing for corporations but did not displace direct beneficial interest analysis)
- Fry v. City of Los Angeles, 245 Cal.App.4th 539 (appellate court) (standing and statutory interpretation are legal questions; factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Capitol Racing v. California Horse Racing Bd., 161 Cal.App.4th 892 (appellate court) (§19463 governs timeliness of challenges to CHRB administrative orders)
- Miller v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, 193 Cal.App.3d 1371 (appellate court) (30‑day limitations period bars late petitions challenging agency action)