Opinion ID: 1227777
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: (10) The Court of Appeal herein held the Board has jurisdiction to decide and enforce tort claims against licensees and nonlicensees of the Board who unlawfully interfere, or cause others to unlawfully interfere, with a horserace. This determination was based primarily on language in the Business and Professions Code and the California Administrative Code establishing the Board's authority over horseracing. The present case involved a unique procedural sequence of events. As previously stated, at the time the trial court sustained defendant's demurrer, the Board followed a policy of refusing to award tort compensation. However, the Board later indicated a willingness to do so, based on the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the Board's authority included the power to award compensation to horseowners who are victimized by unlawful conduct during horse race meetings. The court ultimately determined that a new administrative remedy was available to plaintiff which was previously unavailable. Thus, the court directed the Board to waive time limits so that plaintiff could bring his claim to the Board for affirmative relief. Contrary to the Court of Appeal's conclusion, the power to award compensatory and punitive tort damages to an injured party is a judicial function. Although the Board has very broad power to regulate and discipline wrongful conduct which involves horseracing in California, the relevant statutes do not authorize awarding affirmative compensatory relief such as tort damages. The Court of Appeal concluded that three enactments essentially vested the Board with power to award tort recovery for economic loss. First, Business and Professions Code section 19440 provides in part: The board shall have all powers necessary and proper to enable it to carry out fully and effectually the purposes of this chapter.... Second, the California Administrative Code, title 4, section 1530, provides: Should any case occur which may not be covered by the Rules and Regulations of the Board or by other accepted rules of racing, it shall be determined by the stewards in conformity with justice and in the interest of racing. Third, section 1529 of the Administrative Code provides: The stewards may refer any matter within their jurisdiction to the Board when the penalty the stewards have jurisdiction to impose is insufficient ... or for other good and sufficient cause, and they may order the suspension of the licensee pending further Order of the Board. In such event, the Board shall accept the matter for hearing and adjudication or such other action as the Board deems to be in the best interests of justice. Although the provisions cited by the Court of Appeal vest the Board with broad powers, such powers are regulatory in nature. The Board was created by legislative enactment in 1933 and the grant of broad power has remained essentially unchanged since that time. The preamble to the act provided that its purpose, however, was to regulate, license, supervise and provide penalties for the violation of the provisions of this act. (Stats. 1933, ch. 769, p. 2046, italics added.) Further, in Flores v. Los Angeles Turf Club (1961) 55 Cal.2d 736, 745-746 [13 Cal. Rptr. 201, 361 P.2d 921], we described the Board's powers by noting that pursuant to article IV, section 25a of the California Constitution, the Legislature has enacted a comprehensive scheme of legislation designed to regulate almost every aspect of legalized horse racing and wagering.  (Italics added, fn. omitted.) Business and Professions Code section 19440 confirms this broad regulatory power of the Board. In part the code provides: Responsibilities of the board shall include, but not be limited to: ... [¶] (2) Administration and enforcement of all laws, rules and regulations affecting horseracing and parimutuel wagering. [¶] (3) Adjudication of controversies arising from the enforcement of those laws and regulations dealing with horseracing and parimutuel wagering.... [¶] The board may delegate to stewards such of its powers and duties that are necessary to carry out fully and effectuate the purposes of this chapter. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 19440.) Pursuant to this delegation of power, the Board has promulgated rules contained in California Administrative Code, title 4, section 1400 et seq. Nowhere in title 4, however, is the Board given authority to award affirmative relief in the form of compensatory or punitive tort damages. Section 1405 of title 4, contained in article 1 (Racing Board Powers and Jurisdiction), provides for punishment by the Board: Violation of any provision of this chapter ... is punishable in the discretion of the Board by revocation or suspension of any license, by fine, or by exclusion from all racing ... or by any combination of these penalties. The Board may independently punish any misconduct of any person connected with racing. (Italics added.) The stewards, with whom a claim of interference may be lodged after a race, also have limited authority. Section 1528 of title 4 of the California Administrative Code provides in part: The stewards may suspend the license of anyone whom they have the authority to supervise or they may impose a fine or they may exclude from all enclosures in this State or they may suspend, exclude and fine.  (Italics added.) The Court of Appeal herein acknowledged that the stewards are given express authority to punish a jockey or horse owner or anyone else who is licensed by the Board and is found to have violated a riding rule. (Italics added.) These specific rules and regulations in the California Administrative Code demonstrate the character of the Board as a regulatory and disciplinary entity. The extensive regulations neither express nor imply any authority to award affirmative monetary relief. In fact, each section which authorizes adjudication of racing violations reveals the power of the Board is limited to fines, penalties or exclusions. Accordingly, the regulatory relief available from the Board indicates that it lacks the power to award damages to those who are injured by a violation of the Horse Racing Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 19400 et seq.). It is undisputed that the Board has never awarded such affirmative relief and that neither the Horse Racing Law nor the Board regulations specifically include damages as a form of relief afforded by the Board. [15] Further, California Administrative Code, title 4, section 1699, subdivision (c), provides a specific penalty for acts of interference such as are alleged herein: A horse which interferes with another and thereby causes any other horse to lose stride, lose ground, or lose position, when such other horse is not in fault and when such interference occurs in a part of the race where the horse so interfered with loses the opportunity to place where he might, in the opinion of the stewards, be reasonably expected to finish, may be disqualified and placed behind the horse so interfered with.  (Italics added.) Therefore, since neither the statutes nor the administrative rules governing the power of the Board grant authority to award affirmative relief, we conclude that the jurisdiction of the Board is confined to disciplinary and regulatory matters. [16] Accordingly, the only remedy available from the Board in this case is to reorder the finishing positions of the competitors, which has already been done. (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 4, § 1699, subd. (c).)