A Los Angeles judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by coach Richard Baltas after the California Horse Racing Board banned him from racing in California.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gail Killefer made the decision following an order issued April 6 following a hearing the previous day.
The incident arose when on May 8, 2022, one of Baltas’ employees was caught on videotape with prohibited treatment of Noble devotion before a race at Santa Anita . Park. Two days later, Santa Anita informed Baltas that he was not welcome to participate in horse races at the track, and shortly after, the CHRB banned Baltas from running statewide.
Then, in June 2022, the CHRB initiated a formal administrative complaint against Baltas, alleging repeated violations of the CHRB’s rules. The CHRB Board of Directors held two-month hearings last fall and ultimately ordered a one-year suspension and $10,000 fine for Baltas in their ruling. Due to reciprocity between state regulators, Baltas is also banned from racing outside of California.
As coach, ultimately responsible for the care of his horses, the ruling stated that Baltas violated the CHRB’s race day treatment rules 21 times between the 15th of May and 4 through 8 May 2022, with his horse receiving “X-treme Air Boost”, an herbal supplement for horses, among other substances.
CHRB regulations state that “water may only be used to rinse horses’ mouths on race day” and that “drugs, pharmaceuticals, or any other substance may not be used.”
Baltas’ appeal of the manager’s decision is still pending.
Rollins: Baltas issued a one-year suspension by race manager
Instead of waiting for administrative proceedings to take place, Baltas took the CHRB straight to court with two lawsuits. The first case in which Baltas filed a request to postpone the CHRB’s ban, but to no avail. The case is still pending.
The lawsuit Killefer dismissed was the second of two lawsuits. It essentially seeks remedy and damages under the Bane Act, a California law that prohibits violating a person’s civil rights through coercion, intimidation, or violence.
Killefer agreed with the CHRB that Baltas’ second lawsuit did not state the claim could be granted because he had not exhausted his administrative remedies. The ruling means Baltas must first pursue his appeal against the manager’s ruling to reach a conclusion.
Killefer writes, citing judicial precedent and citing a California law: “Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a judicial prerequisite for recourse to court. “Plaintiff (Baltas) cannot avoid the fact that the content of his complaint is limited to the hearing process and subsequent writing process. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust all judicial remedies will thwart all his requests.”
Baltas defends his position by arguing that he has exhausted his administrative means. “[T]his outcome is predetermined and…waiting any further would be ultimately futile” because “the CHRB determined the outcome of the hearing before the hearing took place,” the law said. his lawyer told the court.
Killefer also noted that Baltas’ damages claim, at least for now, doesn’t comply with California law that places strict limitations on seeking damages on government officials acting in their own right. official way. That law grants “absolute privilege to communications made in any legislative proceeding, in any judicial proceeding, in any other formal proceeding authorized by law.” authorization, or during the initiation or progress of any other proceeding permitted by law,” she wrote.
