IBJNews

Judge clears two horsemen from defamation suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has released two Indiana horsemen from the ongoing defamation and conspiracy case brought by Ed Martin Jr., a former car dealer and thoroughbred breeder.

Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on Monday dismissed with prejudice Martin’s claims against Joe Davis and Randy Klopp, two members of the Indiana Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, or IHBPA. Davis and Klopp had sent information to Indiana authorities in April 2010 about alleged abuse and neglect at Martin’s horse farm in Florida. Martin was exonerated in September 2010.

Martin was losing money on the farm and has since exited the breeding business, but he continues to do battle in court with Indiana Horse Racing Commission Executive Director Joe Gorajec, former commission member Sarah McNaught, IHRC investigator Terry Richwine and Florida veterinarian Liane Puccia.

Puccia wrote a letter about conditions at Martin Stables South that prompted an investigation by the IHRC. Martin’s lawsuit alleges that the investigation was started in retaliation for his various legal and advocacy initiatives.

“We’re going to end up going to trial,” Martin’s attorney, Michael Red, said Tuesday.

Pratt’s ruling means Gorajec, McNaught, Richwine and Puccia still have to defend Martin’s claim, Red said. A trial date is set for February 2014.

Martin was instrumental in establishing Indiana’s horse-racing industry, but his relationships soured in 2009, according to court documents and information that Pratt noted in her ruling. Martin was on the Indiana Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association board of directors and was hired in October 2009 as the executive director.

But he was openly critical of the IHBPA, which represents all owners, trainers and back-of-the-track workers. Martin lobbied against Klopp’s election as president, which created “lingering ill will,” Pratt noted in her ruling.

Martin’s relationships with racing commission officials became “especially acrimonious” in late 2009 and 2010. He started an inquiry into IHRC’s protection of the purse funds that Indiana's two racetracks pay to horsemen. And he successfully lobbied against legislation, favored by Gorajec and McNaught, that would have eliminated advisory committees representing the different horse-racing breeds.

Martin began lobbying Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Nobleville, in opposition to various racing commission proposals, and Kenley held a meeting with Martin, McNaught, Gorajec and others on April 6, 2010.

The next day, Puccia, acting on a request by Gorajec, sent her letter about Martin’s horse farm to Davis and Klopp. They then forwarded the letter to Gorajec.

The IHRC started an investigation on April 9, 2010, and it remains open.

Although Davis and Klopp had communicated about criminal conduct, Pratt found they can’t be held liable for defamation because they, as licensed trainers, had a duty to report suspected wrongdoing.

Pratt also agreed that they had a duty to report on Martin, even though the allegations centered on his farm in Florida, because of his extensive involvement in Indiana horseracing.

Pratt dismissed Martin’s conspiracy claim against Puccia, but left her open to the defamation claim. The veterinarian says she sent the letter "in good faith, under a moral, legal and social duty based on the shared interest in the health and welfare of horses."

The fact she didn’t send the letter until requested by Gorajec, Pratt wrote, raises “at least a question of whether the correspondence was sent because of a duty and shared interest, or for a malicious purpose.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT