Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hector Camacho, Sr v. New Jersey State Athletic Control Board

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


November 20, 2012

HECTOR CAMACHO, SR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE ATHLETIC CONTROL BOARD, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

On appeal from the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 29, 2012

Before Judges Parrillo and Fasciale.

Hector Camacho, Sr., appeals from a March 10, 2010 final agency decision by the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board (the Board) denying his application for a professional boxing license. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

In 2009, Camacho applied to the Board for a one-year boxing license with the intention of fighting in a May 9, 2009 boxing contest in Atlantic City.*fn1 On May 1, 2009, the Commissioner of the Board notified Camacho that he was dissatisfied with the level of skill Camacho displayed during an April 29, 2009 sparring session.*fn2 The Commissioner stated that [d]ue to the fact that there we[] are only days . . . from the weigh-in for this contest, there are too many outstanding issues with regard to Mr. Camacho that cannot be resolved in a timely and proper fashion. Therefore, I cannot grant approval for Mr. Camacho's license application or clearance for him to compete in the proposed May 9, 2009 professional boxing contest . . . .

On May 4, 2009, Camacho's counsel wrote to the Board and stated that "[b]ecause an appeal is a useless remedy with respect to the May 9, 2009 fight, this letter is submitted in an effort to efficaciously address [the] Commissioner['s] . . . concerns, prior to the filing of an appeal or emergent court action." Camacho's counsel then clarified the child support issue and challenged the Commissioner's dissatisfaction with Camacho's skill level.

On May 4, 2009, Camacho then appealed from the Commissioner's denial of his license and the Board scheduled a hearing for November 10, 2009. The Board then postponed the hearing at Camacho's request, rescheduled it to February 24, 2010, and watched a video of Camacho's sparring session.

On March 10, 2010, the Board issued its final agency decision and unanimously upheld the Commissioner's decision to deny Camacho's application. The Board "[m]ainly . . . accept[ed] the positions of the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner [expressing] concerns [with Camacho's skill performance during the sparring session]." The Board reminded Camacho that he was "free to re-apply for a license as of May 2, 2010." This appeal followed.

On appeal, Camacho argues that the Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because the Board focused on one sparring session. Camacho contends that the Commissioner failed to fairly assess his application and requests that we reverse, remand, and direct the Commissioner to reconsider it.

The Board deemed Camacho's application to be filed as of May 1, 2009. If it had granted his application, then Camacho's license would have expired one year later. The Board therefore reminded Camacho, in its final decision, that he had the right to re-file his application as of May 2, 2010. The appeal is therefore moot and, as the Board stated, Camacho is free to re-apply for a new license.

Appeal dismissed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.