Download the lawsuit by clicking here.

Several people have been asking my opinion about the recent lawsuit filed by Sheldon Eisenberg, Gillian Kuhlmann, Nairi Shirinian aka Sullivan and Triggs, LLP on behalf of Lucky Pup Dog Rescue and Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center, Inc.  I wanted to share with you my thoughts and opinions about this landmark case pertaining to saving the animals in our tax-funded Los Angeles animal pounds currently closed to the general public (unless by appointment) by Director Marcia Mayeda. This is all information I believe to be true and worthy of sharing with local and national media.

Attached is a copy of the court filed and served, Petition for Writ of Mandate suing Marcia Mayeda, in her official capacity as Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control; and Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control. The court assigned the same judge 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. Thank you Lori for never giving up and for always inspiring me to be a man-of-action.

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:

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL CODE - FAC
DIVISION 14. REGULATION AND LICENSING OF DOGS [30501 - 31683]( Division 14 enacted by Stats. 1967, Ch. 15. )
CHAPTER 5. Killing and Seizure [31101 - 31153]
( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1967, Ch. 15. )
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.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL CODE - FAC
DIVISION 9. ANIMALS GENERALLY [16301 - 19700]
("https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=17006&lawCode=FAC

(CA FAC section 17006: “Animals that are irremediably suffering from a serious illness or severe injury shall not be held for owner redemption or adoption.... “ (Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 194, Sec. 1. (AB 2791) Effective January 1, 2019.)"

Click the link below to discover the LIVE/DEAD Release Rate for Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control:
http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/dacc/1027589_LiveandNonLIveReleaseCurrentYearPDF.pdf

I hope this information has been helpful. Please share this information across our great state of California. If this law firm wins this lawsuit, hundreds of thousands of our homeless animals lives will be saved this year and for years to come.

Bravo to the all brave souls who act on behalf of saving them all.