Lawsuits Against L.A. County Dept. of Animal Care and Control
Lawsuits have been filed against the Los Angeles
County Department of Animal Care and Control, its Director Marcia Mayeda,
Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
August 28, 2006
A Dog's Life
Rescue filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday,
August 28, 2006 against Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care
and Control and its Director, Marcia Mayeda.
Full
text pdf.
December 20, 2007
The national No
Kill Advocacy Center and two animal rescuers have jointly
filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County, its Department of Animal
Care and
Control, and the Department’s Director, Marcia Mayeda. The lawsuit
alleges unlawful and abusive treatment of animals at all six Los Angeles
County animal shelters.
Also see the Pet
Connection Blog for more information.
Full
text pdf.
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."
January 14, 2008
D.E.L.T.A.
Rescue filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles
Superior Court on Monday, January 14, 2008 against Los Angeles County.
Click here for
complete information.
Full text pdf.
March 21, 2008
Important information about the lawsuits against the Los Angeles County
Dept. of Animal Care and Control
Full text pdf.
October 20, 2008
On October 20, 2008 Judge Halfant signed a Stipulated Order for the lawsuit of Cathy Nguyen, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al. The settlement mandates that the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control will:
- Not kill an animal during State mandated holding period unless the animal meets narrow exceptions permitted by law
- Provide veterinary care to ill and injured animals
- Release animals to rescue groups instead of killing them
- Not retaliate against rescue groups and volunteers who publicly expose agency malfeasance
- Restore the volunteer and rescue rights of plaintiff Cathy Ngyuen
- Provide access to shelter records to ensure compliance
Should DACC violate the order, below are the next steps of legal action:
- The violations can be brought to the judges's attention after providing appropriate notice to DACC
- If violations continue to occur, the court may take actions it deems appropriate to compel DACC's compliance with the order, including appointment of a monitor
February 17, 2009
On February 17, 2009 a press release was issued by the No Kill Advocacy Center documenting extensive ongoing of acts of animal cruelty and abuse in violation of the Stipulated Court Order dated October 20, 2008. The entire press release can be found at http://nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/pr2.16.09.PDF
