March 20, 2008 No Kill Advocacy Center
- Update
The Superior Court in Los Angeles struck two blows
against animal mistreatment in Los Angeles County's six animal shelters by
giving
Plaintiffs
the first
two victories in their lawsuit.
A lawsuit filed by the national No Kill Advocacy Center, Cathy Nguyen,
a volunteer animal rescuer, and Rebecca Arvizu, a Los Angeles County
taxpayer and animal rescuer, against Los Angeles County, its Department
of Animal Care and Control (DACC), and the Department's Director, Marcia
Mayeda, alleges unlawful and abusive treatment of animals at all six
Los Angeles County animal shelters.
Among the allegations in the complaint, the County Department of Animal
Care and Control routinely:
* Kills healthy and treatable animals before their state mandated holding
period expires;
* Misclassifies animals as "ill" or "injured" in
order to kill them before their holding period expires even though
the animals are
not irremediably suffering as required by state law;
* Kills lost animals without making reasonable attempts to find the animals'
owners;
* Fails to provide adequate veterinary care to impounded animals, resulting
in animal deaths;
* Fails to provide adequate nutrition, water, shelter and exercise to impounded
animals and to treat the animals humanely and kindly;
* Refuses to release animals to rescue groups that are willing to care for
the animals until adoptive homes can be found and, instead, kills the animals.
In addition, the lawsuit alleges that DACC unlawfully violated the civil
rights of Plaintiff Nguyen by retaliating against her for publicizing
its unlawful treatment of animals.
The County replied by filing a motion to dismiss the case arguing, in
essence, that the County has complete discretion to determine:
* Whether and when the County may lawfully kill an animal;
* Whether and when the County is obligated to provide veterinary treatment
to an animal in its care; and
* Whether and when the County should release to willing rescue groups animals
that the County otherwise plans to kill.
In addition, the County argued that, even if it is violating the law
or treating animals inhumanely, concerned citizens should not be allowed
to force the County to stop.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs disagreed and
opposed the County's motion to dismiss. Characterizing the County's
arguments as "wrong" and
even "spurious," the Court overruled the County's motion
and ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs that they should be allowed to
go to
trial on their claims.
In addition, attorneys for Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court
to order DACC to allow Cathy Nguyen, who was barred from saving animals
at the shelters as retribution for publicizing shelter atrocities, to
continue saving animals on DACC's death row. The County claimed it did
not retaliate but was unable to offer credible evidence to the contrary.
As a result, the Court entered an order prohibiting DACC from taking
further retaliatory action against Ms. Nguyen.
The one-two blow against DACC provides powerful support for Plaintiffs'
arguments that DACC routinely violates the law at the expense of saving
animals. The lawsuit is being handled by the Los Angeles law firm of
Eisenberg Raizman Thurston and Wong, LLP.
"DACC shelters are spending public tax dollars to kill and mistreat
animals, they are blaming the public for the killing, they are doing
the killing in our name, and we are supposed to accept that without recourse," said
Nathan J. Winograd, director of the No Kill Advocacy Center. "Unfortunately,
we are not paying the ultimate price. That price is being paid by the
animals who are unfortunate enough to enter the shelter system. And
we can't sit back and do nothing."
