Pitbull litigator and Litigation in Animal Law Cases
One of the first cases in federal law involving a pitbull in Northern
California, was when the police killed the owner's pitbull.....
Summary:
One of the first cases in federal law involving a pitbull in Northern
California, was when the police killed the owner's pitbull.....
Summary:
Motion for leave to amend § 1983 civil rights complaint to add claims that police officer violated Fourth Amendment by shooting pet dog and by pointing gun at one plaintiff was denied and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered summary judgment in favor of police officers and city. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) killing of pet dog stated Fourth Amendment violation, but (2) no seizure of plaintiff occurred when police pointed gun.
Case below (non pitbull dog we assume) re 42 USC 1983 claim:
This § 1983 action arises from the shooting of Plaintiffs' dog by Defendant Ronald Hughes, a Michigan Department of Corrections Absconder Recovery Unit Investigator.
Defendant shot Plaintiffs' dog after entering her house by mistake to execute a fugitive warrant.
This proceeding concerns a Motion in Limine filed by defendant seeking an order that plaintiffs are not entitled to non economic losses for the pain and suffering they sustained as a result of Defendant shooting their dog. Defendant contends that damage to personal property (including dogs) is limited to market value only.
In rejecting Defendant's argument, this court found that it is "beyond dispute" that compensatory damages under § 1983 may include non economic injuries. A Plaintiff's interests in § 1983 actions contain different policy considerations than in traditional negligence claims. In fact, the court stated that, "[p]rohibiting recovery for emotional damages stemming from the loss of, or harm to, an animal caused by a constitutional violation would conflict with the compensatory and deterrence aims of § 1983." Additionally, applying Michigan law on the issue of emotional damages for injury to an animal would create inconsistency in civil rights actions since other states allow such damages. The court found that the determination of both compensatory and punitive damages must be left to the fact finder for each case, including this one. Defendant's Motion in Limine was denied.
Civil Rights 42 USC 1983 San Jose Charter of Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose
Case below (non pitbull dog we assume) re 42 USC 1983 claim:
| Moreno v. Hughes | 2016 WL 212932 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2016) |
This § 1983 action arises from the shooting of Plaintiffs' dog by Defendant Ronald Hughes, a Michigan Department of Corrections Absconder Recovery Unit Investigator.
Defendant shot Plaintiffs' dog after entering her house by mistake to execute a fugitive warrant.
This proceeding concerns a Motion in Limine filed by defendant seeking an order that plaintiffs are not entitled to non economic losses for the pain and suffering they sustained as a result of Defendant shooting their dog. Defendant contends that damage to personal property (including dogs) is limited to market value only.
In rejecting Defendant's argument, this court found that it is "beyond dispute" that compensatory damages under § 1983 may include non economic injuries. A Plaintiff's interests in § 1983 actions contain different policy considerations than in traditional negligence claims. In fact, the court stated that, "[p]rohibiting recovery for emotional damages stemming from the loss of, or harm to, an animal caused by a constitutional violation would conflict with the compensatory and deterrence aims of § 1983." Additionally, applying Michigan law on the issue of emotional damages for injury to an animal would create inconsistency in civil rights actions since other states allow such damages. The court found that the determination of both compensatory and punitive damages must be left to the fact finder for each case, including this one. Defendant's Motion in Limine was denied.
Civil Rights 42 USC 1983 San Jose Charter of Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose
| 402 F.3d 962 (C.A.9 (Cal.),2005) | 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2853, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3920 |
In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants-Appellants, seven San Jose City Police Officers and Deputy Sheriff Linderman, appeal from an order of the district court denying in part their motions for qualified immunity.
This action arises out of the simultaneous execution of search warrants at the residences of members of the Hells Angels, and at the Hells Angels clubhouse on January 21, 1998. While executing search warrants at two plaintiffs' residences, the officers shot a total of three dogs. This court held that the shooting of the dogs at the Vieira and Souza residences was an unreasonable seizure, and an unreasonable execution of the search warrants, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Exigent circumstances did not exist at either residence, as the officers had a week to consider the options and tactics available for an encounter with the dogs. The unlawfulness of the officers' conduct would have been apparent to a reasonable officer at the time the officers planned for serving the search warrants
|
Attorney's recollection on talking to the attorney firm that handles the case is that the payout was
several million dollars.
several million dollars.
Attorney herein has done cases on animal and pitbull related
litigation, and has worked with animal experts
on pitbull issues, animal issues, animal husbandry, seizure issues, and
much, much more. The cases are expensive to do and take years, so most attorneys have
little to no interest in them since they are potentially precedent, but take forever.
Attorney is one of few animal law attorneys in the State that can
or will work on cases involving
seizure of pets, and improper animal control actions (not counting
public defenders who have no choice.) In particular many animal seizures
are being done, most of them improperly.
Attorney has insider information on cases due to having worked
these types of cases both in CA and CO, and having read many case
files from other areas. Usually these cases are in the newspapers
and on TV due to media stories.
much, much more. The cases are expensive to do and take years, so most attorneys have
little to no interest in them since they are potentially precedent, but take forever.
Emotional support Dog (pitbull) Case where such breed BANNED by county ordinance:
| Warren v. Delvista Towers Condominium Ass'n, Inc. | 49 F.Supp.3d 1082 (S.D. Fla. 2014) | In its motion for summary judgment, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s accommodation request under the Federal Fair Housing Act (the “FHA”) to modify Defendant's “no pet” policy was unreasonable because Plaintiff's emotional support animal was a pit bull and pit bulls were banned by county ordinance. In denying the Defendant’s motion, the District Court found that changing a no pets policy for an emotional support animal was a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. The court also found that enforcing the county ordinance would violate the FHA by permitting a discriminatory housing practice. However, in line with US Department of Housing and Urban Development notices, the court found genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the dog posed a direct threat to members of the condominium association, and whether that threat could be reduced by other reasonable accommodations. |
Attorney is one of few animal law attorneys in the State that can
or will work on cases involving
seizure of pets, and improper animal control actions (not counting
public defenders who have no choice.) In particular many animal seizures
are being done, most of them improperly.
Attorney has insider information on cases due to having worked
these types of cases both in CA and CO, and having read many case
files from other areas. Usually these cases are in the newspapers
and on TV due to media stories.
Pitbull litigation has been done in many states,
and almost all of such cases involve constitutional law.
The ABA House of Delegates
The ABA House of Delegates
believes that all canine law should be NON breed specific. However typically, the rationale
for the laws are based on the third tier of con law, being rational basis.
Not amazingly, much of the pitbull cases are not in favor of the canines or their
owners, however, this is slowly changing. Most media cases are about dogs attacking
or bad owners, thus people who know little about dogs become afraid.
It is a fact that errant owners are to blame for some things, and the other thing is that
when canines are bred, the breeder
should be well informed on genetics. Remarkably, the blogger from WA who writes only
on dog issues involving human deaths, which she claims are related to purported "pitbull"
type dogs--- published information gleaned from a shelter or shelters which indicated the
shelter was purposely not disclosing certain dogs' propensity for supposedly having displayed
dangerous or aggressive behaviors, and was instead was pushing them for "adoption."
Again, attorney is not shocked since this has been going on
for many years, such as in San Francisco, because animal activists would not mind if people
were harmed or killed. Crazy activists for the most part believe that animals are
essentially people, not property, which is why PETA filed their 2-year-in-the making lawsuit claiming that Orca whales had "rights" (as against "slavery" because of the US Constitution???!!! The Constitution covers humans, not animals. )
APBTs were originally just about 35lbs
when brought from England. Currently they are more like 50-60-lbs. This has
occurred due to the mixing down with other breeds to bring up the weight.
However, the breed standards for APBT and American Staffordshire Terrier are not
the same, the AKC does not recognize the APBT.
The "bullies" are an entirely
different type-- they are mixed down to produce a low riding, heavily slung,
and in most cases, fairly slow canine.
They are often shown simply for being low, slow, and close to the ground, with large
musculature. Unfortunately, some people give the dogs steroids.
Bullies are generally not considered show dogs, but their owners tend
to have con fabs in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, with contests between
members and themselves for weight, color, etc.
It is not true that it's "all in how you raise" the dog-- if in fact one does not KNOW the
exact lineage of the dog, back several generations--then it is highly unlikely one will
know whether the canine will be dog or animal aggressive, since APBT dogs were
specifically bred for that trait.
After many years of breeding, it is easily possible that
such dog can still carry that genetic marker and may display those traits at about
two years of age (possibly sooner...)
Thus when we see cases which claim that a dog
which had "never been aggressive" starts harming others (people, dogs, animals) we
realize that the owners did not know what they had, they didn't know what they were
doing, and it probably was either a rescued animal, or a dumb owner.
Unfortunately
improper breeding in alleged pitbull types of canines has lead to a disproportionate
harm rate in this category of dogs if or when they attack people.
Especially when the breeds of dog are not actually
known, their background is not known, and their behavior/temperament is taken for
granted (such as always considered friendly or etc.) by owners who know little about
canines in general.
for the laws are based on the third tier of con law, being rational basis.
Not amazingly, much of the pitbull cases are not in favor of the canines or their
owners, however, this is slowly changing. Most media cases are about dogs attacking
or bad owners, thus people who know little about dogs become afraid.
It is a fact that errant owners are to blame for some things, and the other thing is that
when canines are bred, the breeder
should be well informed on genetics. Remarkably, the blogger from WA who writes only
on dog issues involving human deaths, which she claims are related to purported "pitbull"
type dogs--- published information gleaned from a shelter or shelters which indicated the
shelter was purposely not disclosing certain dogs' propensity for supposedly having displayed
dangerous or aggressive behaviors, and was instead was pushing them for "adoption."
Again, attorney is not shocked since this has been going on
for many years, such as in San Francisco, because animal activists would not mind if people
were harmed or killed. Crazy activists for the most part believe that animals are
essentially people, not property, which is why PETA filed their 2-year-in-the making lawsuit claiming that Orca whales had "rights" (as against "slavery" because of the US Constitution???!!! The Constitution covers humans, not animals. )
APBTs were originally just about 35lbs
occurred due to the mixing down with other breeds to bring up the weight.
However, the breed standards for APBT and American Staffordshire Terrier are not
the same, the AKC does not recognize the APBT.
The "bullies" are an entirely
different type-- they are mixed down to produce a low riding, heavily slung,
and in most cases, fairly slow canine.
They are often shown simply for being low, slow, and close to the ground, with large
musculature. Unfortunately, some people give the dogs steroids.
Bullies are generally not considered show dogs, but their owners tend
to have con fabs in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, with contests between
members and themselves for weight, color, etc.
It is not true that it's "all in how you raise" the dog-- if in fact one does not KNOW the
exact lineage of the dog, back several generations--then it is highly unlikely one will
know whether the canine will be dog or animal aggressive, since APBT dogs were
specifically bred for that trait.
After many years of breeding, it is easily possible that
such dog can still carry that genetic marker and may display those traits at about
two years of age (possibly sooner...)
Thus when we see cases which claim that a dog
which had "never been aggressive" starts harming others (people, dogs, animals) we
realize that the owners did not know what they had, they didn't know what they were
doing, and it probably was either a rescued animal, or a dumb owner.
Unfortunately
improper breeding in alleged pitbull types of canines has lead to a disproportionate
harm rate in this category of dogs if or when they attack people.
Especially when the breeds of dog are not actually
known, their background is not known, and their behavior/temperament is taken for
granted (such as always considered friendly or etc.) by owners who know little about
canines in general.
*the term "pitbull" is a generic term; there is no canine breed known as pitbull.
There are various canine breeds such as American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pitbull Terrier, Bull terrier (Target mascot dog)...
There are various canine breeds such as American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pitbull Terrier, Bull terrier (Target mascot dog)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are actually United States Supreme Court cases
on issues involving dogs as property, dogs involved in videos, and animals involved in videos, books, or other types of media (HSUS filed that case claiming that any violence involving animals rises to the level of pornography essentially...HSUS lost their ass on that case thank God....especially if one realizes that HSUS thinks everything is animal abuse and has engaged in many illegal seizures nationwide. Stopping HSUS has taken years and years and years. HSUS gets free legal help and is not hurting for money.)
These cases are First Amendment cases and it is likely that there is not one other attorney in Butte County that even knows these cases. For example, U.S. v Stevens....if you are interested
in learning about animal law and research, see Petdefense (on Wordpress) where a group of
both attorneys and researchers contribute.
http://www.thedogplace.org/GENETICS/INDEX.asp <----- A LINK TO CANINE GENETICS
