Maryland Racing Com'n v. Castrenze

• Decision Date: 01 September 1991
• Docket Number: No. 140,140
• Citation: 335 Md. 284,643 A.2d 412
• Parties: MARYLAND RACING COMMISSION v. Charles H. CASTRENZE, Jr. Peter G. ANGELOS v. MARYLAND RACING COMMISSION. ,
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 284

335 Md. 284

643 A.2d 412

MARYLAND RACING COMMISSION v.Charles H. CASTRENZE, Jr.

Peter G. ANGELOS v.MARYLAND RACING COMMISSION.

No. 140, Sept. Term, 1991.

No. 11, Sept. Term, 1992.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 28, 1994.

Bruce C. Spizler, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., both on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.

William M. Huddles(Andrew H. Vance, Braude & Margulies, P.C., all on brief), Baltimore, for respondent.

Frederic M. Brandes(Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, both on brief), Baltimore, petitioner.

Bruce C. Spizler, Asst. Atty Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., both on brief), Baltimore, for respondent.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, ^*CHASANOW, KARWACKI and BELL, JJ.

ELDRIDGE, Judge.

The principal issue before us in these cases concerns the relationship between the license suspension provisions of the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act("APA"), Code (1984, 1993 Repl.Vol.), § 10-405 of the State GovernmentArticle, and a regulation of the Maryland Racing Commission providing that the Commission will reciprocally honor a suspension of a trainer's license by a sister racing jurisdiction.¹ For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the automatic disqualification of a trainer from racing in Maryland by virtue of a foreign suspension does not itself amount to a license suspension by the Maryland Racing Commission and, therefore, does not require compliance with § 10-405 of the APA.Furthermore, we hold that, in the context of reciprocally honoring another jurisdiction's suspension, due process requirements are satisfied when the trainer is promptly given written notice of the facts deemed to warrant the reciprocal ruling and is informed of the opportunity to be heard on the matter.

I.

This opinion involves two separate cases, and we set forth below the facts of each case.

A.No. 140, Maryland Racing Commission v. Castrenze

Charles H. Castrenze, Jr., is licensed in Maryland and Delaware, as well as in other states, as a trainer of thoroughbred race horses.On June 30, 1990, Castrenze failed to arrange for the timely administration of Furosemide (Lasix) to a horse which he had entered in a Delaware race, resulting in a late scratch.Consequently, on July 2, 1990, the Delaware Stewards fined Castrenze one hundred dollars.When Castrenze failed to pay the fine or take an appeal after 20 days had elapsed, the Delaware Stewards suspended his trainer's license.A copy of the suspension notice was mailed to Castrenze from Delaware on July 23, 1990.On July 28, 1990, Castrenze paid the Delaware fine and was restored to good standing.

On July 24, 1990, a horse trained by Castrenze was entered in the fourth race at the Laurel Race Course in Maryland.The horse, ELLOREE, won the race.Notice of Castrenze's Delaware suspension was published one day later in the Daily Racing Form of July 25, 1990.A competing trainer saw the publication and filed a protest with the Maryland Stewards on July 26, 1990, claiming that Castrenze had been ineligible to race ELLOREE in Maryland while under suspension in Delaware.

Thereafter, the Stewards gave Castrenze notice, and they conducted a hearing in the matter on August 4, 1990.After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence, the Stewards determined that since "trainer Charles [H.] Castrenze was ineligible to participate in racing at Laurel Race Course on Tuesday, July 24, 1990," the horse ELLOREE was "disqualified from first position and placed last in the fourth race on Tuesday, July 24, 1990."Two Racing Commission regulations, when read together, provided the basis for the Stewards' determination.COMAR 09.10.01.48A provides for the Commission's recognition of a suspension issued by an authorized racing association in any other jurisdiction.² COMAR09.10.01.17(CC) provides that a horse managed by a disqualified person may not be entered in a race.³Applying these provisions, the Stewards disqualified ELLOREE from first position, placed ELLOREE last in the race, and ordered that the purse be redistributed according to the new order of finish.

Castrenze appealed the Stewards' decision to the Maryland Racing Commission, claiming that he had not been notified of his Delaware suspension, either by the Delaware racing authority or the Maryland Racing Commission, prior to the running of the race in Maryland.The Racing Commission held a de novo hearing on the matter on December 12, 1990.

Initially at the hearing, the testimony of the Commission's chief investigator established that Castrenze had been under a Delaware suspension when he raced ELLOREE in Maryland on July 24, 1990.The remainder of the testimony at the hearing centered on whether Castrenze received notice by the Delaware Stewards of their suspension in time to affect his decision to race in Maryland.One administrative Steward testified that, regardless of when the Delaware notification may have been sent, "[t]he point [of Maryland's reciprocity ruling] was that a man is ruled off when the ruling is issued by the governing body."At the end of the hearing, the Racing Commission unanimously voted to uphold the Stewards' decision, informing Castrenze that

"[t]he rule says a horse may not be qualified to be entered or to start in any race if owned in whole or in part or is under the management directly or indirectly of a disqualified person.There's no requirement as far as notice is concerned, and [Mr. Castrenze]we're sympathetic toward you ... but the rule states and it really binds the Commission....[W]hen that horse ran you were disqualified whether or not you had notice."

In its written Memorandum and Order issued on January 18, 1991, the Commission alternatively held that "[t]rainer Charles H. Castrenze, Jr. was properly notified that he had been fined $100 by the Delaware Stewards on June 30, 1990, and that such fine must be paid within 48 hours of its imposition absent a timely appeal."The Commission further found that "[t]rainer Castrenze raced the horse 'ELLOREE' in the fourth race at Laurel Race Course on July 24, 1990, while under suspension by the Delaware Racing Commission for failure to pay the fine."Taking into account only the fact of the Delaware suspension and the timing of the Maryland race, the Commission concluded:

"By virtue of his suspension in Delaware and being denied the privileges of the grounds in Delaware, trainer Castrenze was, likewise, under a suspension and denied the privileges of the grounds of race tracks in Maryland.COMAR 09.10.01.48(A).

"... On July 24, 1990, the horse 'ELLOREE' was under the management of trainer Castrenze, then a disqualified person, and, as a result, the horse was not qualified to start the fourth race at Laurel Race Course on that date.COMAR 09.10.01.17[ (CC) ]."

Castrenze filed this action for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.The circuit court, framing the issue as "whether the Maryland Racing Commission may suspend the license of a horse trainer pursuant to its reciprocity regulations without first providing notice of such suspension and an opportunity to be heard," held that the action of the Racing Commission violated § 10-405 of the APA.In overruling the Racing Commission's decision, the court stated as follows:

"The Racing Commission's application of its reciprocity regulation runs counter to the clear language of the statute requiring both notice and an opportunity for a hearing prior to the suspension of a license.Here Appellant was not provided with both notice and an opportunity to be heard until after July 24, 1990, the relevant date of suspension in Maryland.After first providing both notice and a hearing, the Racing Commission could have suspended Appellant as of the time of the initial hearing on August 4, 1990, but it could not suspend retroactively back to July 24, 1990."

The Racing Commission then appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, and, before consideration of the case by that court, we issued a writ of certiorari.

B.No. 11, Angelos v. Maryland Racing Commission

Peter G. Angelos is the owner of WIN A GAME, a thoroughbred race horse.WIN A GAME won the seventh race at the Pimlico Race Course in Maryland on May 25, 1991.Subsequent to the running of the race, the Maryland Stewards discovered that the horse's trainer, John Battista Pizzurro, had been suspended effective May 25, 1991, at the Philadelphia Park racetrack in Pennsylvania, for failure to pay a forty dollar jockey fee.

The Stewards notified Pizzurro to appear before them for a hearing.As in the Castrenze case, the Stewards applied the COMAR 09.10.01.48(A) reciprocity rule in conjunction with the eligibility rule in COMAR 09.10.01.17(CC), and determined that WIN A GAME had been ineligible to race in the seventh race on May 25, 1991, because at that time the horse's trainer was under suspension in Pennsylvania.They ordered WIN A GAME disqualified from the race and the purse redistributed among the qualified horses.

Angelos appealed to the Racing Commission from the Stewards' decision and was granted a hearing.The uncontradicted evidence at the hearing established that trainer Pizzurro had been under a suspension by another jurisdiction when he raced the winning horse in Maryland on May 25, 1991.At the conclusion of the hearing, the Racing Commission unanimously affirmed, finding that

"reciprocity is simply a matter of the full faith and the credit of another state ... it is not an issue we can revisit and examine when another state has suspended a licensee, ... reciprocity exists and we accept it."

The Commission reiterated this point in its written Memorandum and Order of August 16, 1991, holding:

"Full faith and credit is to be given by the Maryland Racing Commission to a suspension issued by a foreign jurisdiction, and every person suspended or ruled off the course of a recognized racing association, such as Philadelphia...