SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - July 25, 2019

EVENT DATE: 07/26/2019 EVENT TIME: 11:30:00 AM DEPT.: C-65

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Ronald F. Frazier

CASE NO.: 37-2019-00036284-CU-BC-CTL

CASE TITLE: JERRY HOLLENDORFER & CALIFORNIA THOROUGHBRED TRAINERS VS DEL MAR
THOROUGHBRED CLUB 22ND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ASSOCIATION 2260

CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Breach of Contract/Warranty

EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil)

CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Hollendorfer's and California Thoroughbred Trainers' request for preliminary injunction
is GRANTED with modification.
"In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh two 'interrelated' factors: (1)
the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm
to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction." (Butt v. State of California (192) 4 Cal.4th
668, 677-78.) "The trial court's determination must be guided by a 'mix' of the potential-merit and
interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff's showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to
support an injunction." (Id. at p. 678.)

Plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence for the court to conclude Mr. Hollendorfer will suffer
irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued. Mr. Hollendorfer has been a licensed thoroughbred owner
and trainer for approximately 40 years. (Hollendorfer Decl. ¶ 4.) This is his only occupation, and his
principal income is derived from participating in the races. (Id. at ¶¶ 56, 58.) Mr. Hollendorfer asserts
that if he is excluded from the Del Mar Fairgrounds and/or from Los Alamitos Race Track, he will have
lost the opportunity to engage in his occupation and will face imminent loss of his business. (Id. at ¶¶
54, 64.) In addition, Mr. Hollendorfer asserts that since Defendant Del Mar Thoroughbred Club's ("Del
Mar TC's") likely denial of his entries was first reported to the media, he has lost approximately 40
additional horses from his stable. (Id. at ¶ 65.) Further, there is not sufficient evidence for the court to
conclude Del Mar TC will suffer any harm by issuance of an injunction.
Plaintiffs have also submitted sufficient evidence for the court to conclude they are likely to prevail on the
merits of their claims.
Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts causes of action for 1) Temporary Restraining Order, 2) Preliminary
Injunction, 3) Declaratory Relief, and 4) Breach of Contract.
Del Mar TC points out the Complaint fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.112, which
requires that each cause of action must state the party asserting it, and the party against whom it is
directed. (Cal. R. Court, rule 2.112(3) and (4).) However, the court is obligated to liberally construe the
pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452.) While the causes of action could have been stated more clearly,
the court considers this a curable defect. For purposes of determining whether a preliminary injunction
may issue, the court has evaluated whether any of the causes of action has probable merit against Del
Mar TC.

Event ID: 2132776 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 32

Page: 1
CASE TITLE: JERRY HOLLENDORFER & CASE NUMBER: 37-2019-00036284-CU-BC-CTL
CALIFORNIA THOROUGHBRED
Del Mar TC asserts, and the court agrees, the first two "causes of action" are merely remedies, and not
properly stated causes of action. "Injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself, a cause of action, and a
cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted." (Shell Oil Co. v. Richter (1942) 52
Cal.App.2d 164, 168.)
Under the third cause of action, Plaintiffs assert an actual controversy has arisen between them and
Defendants, and seek a judicial determination of a number of issues. (Compl. ¶¶ 135-136.) Under the
fourth cause of action, Plaintiffs assert Defendants have breached the Race Meet Agreement by, among
other things, refusing to allocate stall assignments to Mr. Hollendorfer in an arbitrary and capricious
manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 144-145.)
The State Race Track Leasing Commission ("Commission") is the entity authorized to enter into leases
for the use of the Del Mar Race Track. (Food & Ag. Code §§ 4351, 4353.) The Del Mar Race Track is
owned by Defendant 22nd Agricultural Association, and "[a]ny lease or agreement shall be on behalf of
the 22nd District Agricultural Association, and the district shall continue in control of its property, subject
to the conditions and terms of that lease or agreement." (Food & Ag. Code § 4353.) Del Mar TC is the
entity currently leasing the Del Mar Race Track and operating the race meets at the Del Mar Race Track.
(Rubenstein Decl. ¶ 3.)
Plaintiffs assert the common law doctrine of fair procedure applies to the facts of this case, and the court
agrees. "The purpose of the common law right to fair procedure is to protect, in certain situations,
against arbitrary decisions by private organizations." (Kurz v. Fed'n of Petanque U.S.A. (2006) 146
Cal.App.4th 136, 147 (citing Potvin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1060, 1066.) "The
duty to comply with the common law right to fair procedure arises if the entity possesses sufficient
market power that exclusion significantly impairs the practice of the applicant's profession or affects a
substantial economic interest." (Palm Med. Group, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2008) 161
Cal.App.4th 206, 219.)
Mr. Hollendorfer's status as a licensed trainer and owner "does not confer any right upon the holder
thereof to employment at or participation in a race meeting...." (4 Cal. Code Regs. § 1485.) Del Mar TC
has authority to remove or deny access to a person from its premises. (4 Cal. Code Regs. § 1989.) Del
Mar TC does not, however, have the authority to arbitrarily exclude a licensee from its track, such that it
amounts to preventing the licensee from pursuing his or her calling. (See Greenburg v. Hollywood Turf
Club (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 968, 977.) As explained in Tisher v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd. (1991) 231
Cal.App.3d 349, the plaintiff in Greenberg was a stable agent who "was singled out and arbitrarily
excluded from Hollywood Park race track without any reason being given for his exclusion." (Tisher at p.
360.) While a race track "has the right to exclude persons for legitimate reasons," it may not do so on an
arbitrary basis. (Ibid.)
Similarly, the Race Meet Agreement between CTT and Del Mar TC for the Summer 2019 season
provides that "[i]n the allocation and assignment of stall space for thoroughbreds, so long as the trainer
is duly licensed, TRACK will not discriminate in any way against any trainer by reason of membership of
any trainer in the CTT, or by way of any arbitrary and capricious conduct by TRACK." (RMA, p. 4, § VI,
emphasis added.) The Stall Application also contains a provision in which Del Mar TC reserves the right
to refuse such application and/or entry into any race, but expressly states such decision "shall not be
made in an arbitrary or capricious manner." (RMA, p. 15, Ex. A, ¶ 1, emphasis added.) The Race Meet
Agreement states that where the language of the Stall Application is inconsistent with the Race Meet
Agreement, the Race Meet Agreement controls. (RMA, p. 12, § XXIII.)
Del Mar TC contends the portion of Section VI of the Race Meet Agreement cited above must be
interpreted "to relate only to decisions that violate public policy against discriminatory conduct based on
arbitrary classifications," and cites generally to the Unruh Act. (Opp. at p. 10.) Del Mar TC claims any
other reading would result in a conflict between the first and second paragraphs of Section VI of the
Race Meet Agreement. The court disagrees. The intent of a contract is to be determined from the
writing alone, if possible. (See Civ. Code § 1639.) Further, "[t]he whole of a contract is to be taken
Event ID: 2132776 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 32
Page: 2
CASE TITLE: JERRY HOLLENDORFER & CASE NUMBER: 37-2019-00036284-CU-BC-CTL
CALIFORNIA THOROUGHBRED
together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the
other." (Civ. Code § 1641.) In view of these principles of contract interpretation, the court finds both the
Race Meet Agreement and the Stall Application prohibit Del Mar from refusing Mr. Hollendorfer's
application and/or entry into a race in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Nothing in the plain words of
the Race Meet Agreement suggests the first paragraph of Section VI of the Race Meet Agreement was
to be limited as Del Mar TC asserts.

Moreover, the court finds no conflict between the Stall Application's provision that CTT may request
review of Del Mar TC's decision to refuse an application or refuse entry to a race and the Race Meet
Agreement's provision entitling CTT to present a trainer's grievance to Del Mar TC, and to proceed to
arbitration to the extent the dispute is not settled.
The Race Meet Agreement, the Stall Application, and the relevant legal authorities all support the same
conclusion: Del Mar TC is not permitted to arbitrarily deny Mr. Hollendorfer's stall application, nor
arbitrarily refuse him entry to a race. Despite this, there is evidence Del Mar TC did indeed arbitrarily
deny Mr. Hollendorfer's stall application without first providing him fair procedure. Accordingly, the court
finds there is adequate evidence to conclude Plaintiffs have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the
merits, as to their claims for declaratory relief and breach of contract.
Del Mar TC contends there is a risk of inconsistent rulings by this court and the California Horse Racing
Board, but provides no factual or legal support for this assertion. Del Mar TC has not asserted the
Board has exclusive jurisdiction, or that Plaintiffs must first exhaust their administrative remedies with the
Board before seeking an injunction with the court. Absent legal authority on point, the court rejects this
contention.
The court orders Defendant Del Mar Thoroughbred Club is enjoined from denying Mr. Hollendorfer's stall
application, from refusing Mr. Hollendorfer entry to the Del Mar races, and from preventing Mr.
Hollendorfer's access to the fairgrounds as necessary to saddle, observe, and race his horses until fair
procedure can be completed, in the form of arbitration as per the Race Meet Agreement. The court sets
a status conference for October 25, 2019 at 10:45 a.m.
Plaintiffs also requested that Del Mar TC be prohibited from taking any action initiating, leading to,
and/or advocating that Mr. Hollendorfer be removed from the stalls currently occupied by his horses at
the Los Alamitos Race Course. However, this request is denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff shall submit an order for the court's signature.

Event ID: 2132776 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 32

Page: 3