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. to mention the rest of Molly's experience- she served as Communications Director for the Indianapolis Department of Public Works and also did communications for the state. She's incredibly qualified for this role and has a real love for Indianapolis and Indiana. Best of luck to her!

  2. Shall we not demand the same scrutiny for law schools, med schools, heaven forbid, business schools, etc.? How many law school grads are servers? How many business start ups fail and how many business grads get low paying jobs because there are so few high paying positions available? Why does our legislature continue to demean public schools and give taxpayer dollars to charters and private schools, ($171 million last year), rather than investing in our community schools? We are on a course of disaster regarding our public school attitudes unless we change our thinking in a short time.

  3. I agree with the other reader's comment about the chunky tomato soup. I found myself wanting a breadstick to dip into it. It tasted more like a marinara sauce; I couldn't eat it as a soup. In general, I liked the place... but doubt that I'll frequent it once the novelty wears off.

  4. The Indiana toll road used to have some of the cleanest bathrooms you could find on the road. After the lease they went downhill quickly. While not the grossest you'll see, they hover a bit below average. Am not sure if this is indicative of the entire deal or merely a portion of it. But the goals of anyone taking over the lease will always be at odds. The fewer repairs they make, the more money they earn since they have a virtual monopoly on travel from Cleveland to Chicago. So they only comply to satisfy the rules. It's hard to hand public works over to private enterprise. The incentives are misaligned. In true competition, you'd have multiple roads, each build by different companies motivated to make theirs more attractive. Working to attract customers is very different than working to maximize profit on people who have no choice but to choose your road. Of course, we all know two roads would be even more ridiculous.

  5. The State is in a perfect position. The consortium overpaid for leasing the toll road. Good for the State. The money they paid is being used across the State to upgrade roads and bridges and employ people at at time most of the country is scrambling to fund basic repairs. Good for the State. Indiana taxpayers are no longer subsidizing the toll roads to the tune of millions a year as we had for the last 20 years because the legislature did not have the guts to raise tolls. Good for the State. If the consortium fails, they either find another operator, acceptable to the State, to buy them out or the road gets turned back over to the State and we keep the Billions. Good for the State. Pat Bauer is no longer the Majority or Minority Leader of the House. Good for the State. Anyway you look at this, the State received billions of dollars for an assett the taxpayers were subsidizing, the State does not have to pay to maintain the road for 70 years. I am having trouble seeing the downside.

ADVERTISEMENT