Update March 10, 2008:  Los Angeles County and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming private citizens such as the plaintiffs don't have standing to force them to comply with the law. The Court disagreed and overruled the motion, calling the defense arguments "wrong" and "spurious".

The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to order the county to allow Plaintiff Cathy Nguyen in the shelters to save animals. The county previously barred her from its animal shelters.  One of the plaintiffs' claims is that the county retaliated against Nguyen by barring her from the shelters. The Court entered an order barring the county from further retaliation, meaning Nguyen must be permitted into the shelters to rescue animals.

For more on this case, read Animal Law Coalition's original report below.  

Original report: The No Kill Advocacy Center founded by a pioneer of the No Kill movement, Nathan Winograd, has, along with two rescuers, Cathy Nguyen and Rebecca Arvizu, filed suit against Los Angeles County, its Department of Animal Care and Control (DACC)and Director Marcia Mayeda. The suit is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Basically, the Complaint filed in this case alleges violations of the Hayden Law. The Hayden law consists of a number of amendments to various laws. These amendments are designed to reduce shelter euthanasia rates throughout the state, encourage owner redemption and adoptions and improve the treatment of animals. In passing this law, the state proposed to end the euthanasia of adoptable and treatable animals by 2010. Civil Code § 1834.4, CA Food & Agr. Code §17005, CA Penal Code §599d

Violations of The Hayden Law

       Killing animals before the end of the minimum holding period and misclassifying animals to justify euthanizing them early

Under the law shelters are generally required to hold dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, pot-bellied pigs, birds, lizards, snakes, turtles, or tortoises for 6 business days before euthanizing them. A smaller shelter that has made the animals available by appointment or one that has been open for redemption or adoption one evening or one weekend day, is only required to hold them for 4 business days. CA Food & Agr. Code §§ 31108, 31752, 31753.

The Complaint charges that Los Angeles County DACC routinely "kills healthy and adoptable animals" without holding them for the minimum period of time.  According to records obtained from DACC, in a 16 month period between January, 2006 and April, 2007, 2, 938 health adoptable animals were killed before the minimum holding period had ended.  Most of these - 488 of the dogs and 1,398 of the cats - were killed, according to the Complaint, on the same day they came to one of the County's 6 animal shelters.   The plaintiffs caution the numbers may be much higher because these included just the animals DACC admitted were "normal". They say there may and likely were many more that were classified as having some problem to justify their euthanasia when, in fact, nothing was wrong with them.

During this same period of time, another 259 animals were killed before the minimum holding period simply because, according to DACC records, they had a "skin condition" or were "malnourished". This, say the plaintiffs, despite California's law that requires the county to hold animals for a minimum time if they have illnesses or injuries that are treatable, or untreatable but not causing irremediable suffering.  And, again, the plaintiffs claim most of these animals - 97 of the dogs and 61 of the cats - were killed on the same day they arrived at the shelter. Again, these numbers may in reality be much higher because of misclassification by DACC staff, at least according to the Complaint.

The complaint also states DACC killed at least 242 animals during this same period without holding them the minimum required time because they were declared to be "geriatric".  According to the Complaint, most died on their first day of admission to the shelter.

The DACC is said to have illegally killed 343 dogs and 24 cats before the expiration of the minimum required holding period because they were deemed "aggressive" though there was no documented history of vicious or dangerous behavior. Only 25 of the dogs were owner surrendered and even then, most had no documented history of such behavior. Most of these animals, according to the Complaint, were killed the first day they came to the shelter. It is said that it is likely the numbers of animals killed because the shelter staff decided subjectively they were aggressive is much higher.

      Killing feral cats before the end of the minimum holding period and misclassifying stressed, scared cats as feral

Shelters must also take steps to verify whether a cat is actually feral or simply frightened. If a cat is determined by a standard protocol to be feral, it may be euthanized after 3 days unless there is a request from a 501c(3) non-profit group to take it. CA Food & Agr. Code §31752.5.

Hundreds of cats described as feral were said to be killed by DACC during this same 16 month period before they were held the minimum 3 day period. The Complaint states many of these poor cats were killed the day they were admitted to the shelter. What is not known is how many cats were not feral but described that way by the staff because they were stressed and frightened.

      Failing to help owners find lost animals and promote adoptions as required   

Under the Hayden Law shelters are required to assist owners in finding or placing lost animals by: (1) allowing people the ability to list the animals they have lost or found on "Lost and Found" lists maintained by the pound or shelter; (2) referring them to animals listed that may be the animals the owners or finders have lost or found; (3) providing people with the telephone numbers and addresses of other pounds and shelters in the same vicinity, (4) advising as to means of publishing and disseminating information regarding lost animals, and (5) providing the telephone numbers and addresses of volunteer groups that may be of assistance in locating lost animals. CA Food & Agr. Code §32001

Recordkeeping is also an important component of the Hayden Law. The records must include (a) the date the animal was taken up, medically treated, euthanized, or impounded; (b) the circumstances under which the animal was taken up, medically treated, euthanized, or impounded; (c) the names of the personnel who took up, medically treated, euthanized, or impounded the animal; (d) a description of any medical treatment provided to the animal and the name of the veterinarian of record, and (e) the final disposition of the animal, including the name of the person who euthanized the animal or the name and address of the adopting party. These records must be maintained for three years after the last date of the animal's impoundment. CA Food & Agr. Code §32003

The county is charged with failing to provide a meaningful opportunity for owners to find lost animals or the public to adopt shelter animals: DACC is said to put animals in sections of the shelter not accessible to the public. It is alleged DACC does not scan many animals for micro-chips. Its staff is said not to update its website to alert owners of missing animals or the public and rescues or animals available for adoption. There is allegedly inadequate staff to answer phones or assist the public looking for lost animals or interested in adopting an animal. According to the Complaint, DACC's failure to keep proper records of animals and have adequate identification and tracking measures has resulted in many animals that are missing and many more that die because owners did not have a chance to claim them.

       Failing to release animals to nonprofits requesting to take them

The Hayden law mandates that instead of killing stray animals, public shelters or agencies must release them to any 501c(3) non-profit group that requests them. CA Food & Agr. Code §31752

The Complaint says DACC routinely fails to release to rescues animals scheduled to be put to death and have even killed animals when they know rescuers are en route to pick them up. Many animals, according to the plaintiffs, are killed that rescuers would take, but they are never made aware of their existence.

       Failing to provide humane care and treatment including veterinary care

Other provisions of the Hayden Law require humane care and treatment of animals held by shelters including necessary veterinary care. CA Civil Code §§1815, 1834, 2080; Pen. Code §§597e, 597f, 597.1, 599.

It is disturbing to read the Complaint's documentation of DACC's lack of humane care and treatment of the animals. The plaintiffs say DACC fails to staff shelters adequately and with employees that are competent.  There is allegedly a lack of veterinary care; animals are left in pain without proper medication and treatment. Animals are reportedly left without water or with filthy, "murky" water.  Animals are said to be left in soaking wet kennels in cages at the Carson shelter because of an improperly working watering system. At the Carson and Lancaster shelters in particular, animals are allegedly left in kennels or cages filled with their own urine and excrement. The staff at the Carson shelter are said to routinely lock animals outside without shade or proper protection from weather. The Complaint points to instances of animals dying unexpectedly or "under disturbing circumstances", indicating gross abuse by staff members.  

  DACC and Mayeda's Alleged Illegal Retaliation

On November 21, 2007 Plaintiff Cathy Nguyen and another rescuer, Janet Taylor, delivered a letter to Director Mayeda, outlining these problems with DACC.

On December 13, 2007 Mayeda is said to have retaliated against Nguyen and Taylor by suspending Taylor from her position as a volunteer with the Carson shelter, forbidding animals from being released to either of them or any rescues where they volunteer and revoking Irvine Animal Care Center ‘s status as a partner that takes animals to be killed by DACC and refusing to support  its adoption events because Nguyen volunteers there.  In a December 14, 2007 letter Mayeda basically rejected the complaints of Nguyen and Taylor.

Plaintiffs' Standing and Requests for Relief

The plaintiffs have asked the court for a writ of mandate to stop these alleged violations of California's Hayden and Vincent laws. Nguyen and Arvizu claim they have standing to bring this action because they have suffered "direct, concrete and particularize injuries to their aesthetic interests in observing and enjoying the animals whom they regularly visit" at the shelters. They say they have seen firsthand the inhumane care and treatment alleged in the Complaint. They say "[o]bserving the animals living under these conditions has been injurious to the legally protectable aesthetic sensibilities of Plaintiffs". No Kill Advocacy Center says it has been frustrated in its efforts to save animals from the shelters and has been forced to divert its resources to consult, monitor, and investigate conditions at the shelter.

Plaintiff Nguyen says the defendants' retaliatory actions against her violates her rights of free speech and to petition to redress grievances guaranteed by the 1^st and 14^th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Nguyen asks for injunctive relief under 42 USC §1983 to stop DACC from continuing to violate her rights.

Arvizu brings her action as a taxpayer claiming that by these violations of law, DACC has wasted and used taxpayer monies illegally. She also seeks injunctive relief to require the DACC to comply with the laws.  

A copy of the Complaint is in Animal Law Coalition's Pending Cases. Just click on Pending Cases on the top right on this page.  For more about this case, visit http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/

Click here to find adoptable animals from DACC. Also, click here to visit the Petfinder site for the Los Angeles County shelters for information about the animals available for adoption.