New Lawsuit Facing Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control: My Opinion
Click this image below to download the entire lawsuit...
Attached to this post is a copy of the court filed and served, Petition for Writ of Mandate suing Marcia Mayeda and L.A. County, The court assigned the same judge that was assigned to the first lawsuit against L.A. County years ago for multiple violations of the Hayden Act and the California codes comprising it. That lawsuit was settled and after the five year stipulated agreement made by the County to comply with the laws, the County reverted back to its illegal practices including adding to the list, their newly created illegal requirement that 501c3 rescue groups must be 'approved' by the County. The law is unambiguous that a 501c3 does not need to be 'approved' and that their notice to take an impounded pet that is not 'irremediably suffering' must be granted. The Petition clearly spells out the laws.
The first court date set in this lawsuit is for January 11, 2022. Because of this case being a Petition for Writ of Mandate, it was placed on an earlier court calendar than regular court cases. The entire lawsuit may be concluded shortly thereafter.
Many thanks to the fierce, and very successful animal advocate. Lori Wagner. for making this lawsuit happen. While she is not a party to the legal action, it is the result of her efforts in finding the brave rescue organizations/plaintiffs and very competent law firm, with Sheldon Eisenberg, to take on this very important case.
It is unfortunate that this litigation is necessary and important to note that the County's defense will be wholly taxpayer funded. CA Govt. Code allows the government agencies to litigate with a waiver of ALL legal filing fees. There is virtually, literally, NO accountability for the government abuse of power and process in these cases - so far, In the meantime, the public, legitimately worries about the retaliation by County that will involve harm to impounded pets rescues try to save during the interim of the court date and outcome of this matter
As the lawsuit states, the ONLY exception to the release of impounded pets and the law is crystal clear that there is ONLY ONE exception - "irremediably suffering." Even dogs that bite and are 'declared' potentially dangerous or vicious under CA law, are allowed to live, depending on the severity of the bite and whether the bite was 'unprovoked' by the victim, etc. Here is the CA law from the CA legislature's website which is the basis of the current lawsuit:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=31108&lawCode=FAC CA FAC section 31108: … "(b)(1) Except as provided in Section 17006, any stray dog that is impounded pursuant to this division shall, before the euthanasia of that animal, be released to a nonprofit, as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, animal rescue or adoption organization if requested by the organization before the scheduled euthanasia of that animal. The public or private shelter may enter into cooperative agreements with any animal rescue or adoption organization. …" FAC sections 31752, 31753 and 31754 have the same requirements as 31108) You will note that there is a ‘period’ between the two sentences above and the operative word “may” indicates that a cooperative agreement is NOT a requirement for a shelter to release an impounded animal to an animal rescue group with 501(c)(3) status.
Comments