Margarito

Margarito v. State Athletic Commission

Good Law
116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 888·189 Cal. App. 4th 159·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1772
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 14, 2010B220649California4,895 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chavez, J.

Plaintiff and appellant Antonio Margarito (Margarito) appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel defendant and respondent State Athletic Commission (the Commission) to set aside its order revoking Margarito’s professional boxing license. The Commission revoked Margarito’s license because its inspectors found gauze pads that had been adulterated with a white plasterlike substance in the protective hand wraps Margarito was to wear during a championship contest against another boxer in Los Angeles. The use of such adulterated pads is prohibited by professional boxing rule 323 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 4, § 323) (rule 323).

Margarito contends his trainer placed the adulterated pads in the hand wraps without his knowledge or consent, and that there was no legal basis to revoke his license based on strict or vicarious liability. Margarito further contends his due process rights were violated because the Commission unfairly changed its theory of liability during the course of the administrative hearing and because the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence.

We conclude that no due process violation occurred and that the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.