To print this text, all you want is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On September 18, 2023, the California Court of Appeal, Second
Appellate District, Division Five, issued a call reversing a
trial courtroom’s dismissal of a case introduced by two animal rescue
teams difficult actions by the County of Los Angeles in
euthanizing dogs moderately than turning them over to animal rescue
teams. Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center v. County of
Los Angeles, No. B318954 (Cal. App. Sept. 18, 2023). The
matter was remanded for additional proceedings.
Plaintiffs introduced their motion beneath the Hayden Act, which is
codified in varied California Civil, Penal and Food and
Agricultural Code provisions. The Act makes it the coverage of the
state that animals shouldn’t be euthanized if they’re adoptable
or treatable. “Adoptable” usually implies that the animal
manifests “no signal of a behavioral or temperamental defect
that might pose a well being or security danger or in any other case make the
animal unsuitable for placement as a pet.” A
“treatable” animal is one that’s not adoptable however may
change into adoptable “with cheap efforts.” The Act
additional offers that animals “irremediably affected by a
critical sickness or extreme harm” shall not be held for proprietor
redemption or adoption. However, earlier than an animal is euthanized it
shall be launched to a 501(c)(3) nonprofit if requested by the
nonprofit earlier than the scheduled euthanasia.
Plaintiffs, two 501(c)(3) organizations working no-kill
shelters, argued that LA County routinely fails to carry out its
“ministerial responsibility” of releasing dogs to any 501(c)(3)
with out additional qualification except the animal is affected by
an irremediable critical sickness or harm. The County argued that
it had no necessary responsibility to launch an animal to any organization
claiming to be a 501(c)(3) and that it had discretion in
figuring out whether or not or not it will launch a given animal primarily based on
whether or not the animal has behavioral issues or is in any other case
unsuitable for adoption.
On whether or not the County’s responsibility to launch was ministerial or
discretionary, the courtroom sided with the plaintiffs:
[The statute] doesn’t confer the County discretion to
withhold a canine on the premise that the County has deemed it to have
“behavioral issues” or has decided that it’s
unadoptable and untreatable. Rather [the statute] imposes a
necessary responsibility on the County to launch such animals upon request
from a professional organization. [Slip op. at 15.]
The courtroom restricted its holding to the info earlier than it (i.e., to
dogs) and didn’t attain the problem whether or not this interpretation
utilized to different shelter animals (cats, rabbits and different
recognized species) or to proprietor relinquished animals.
However, on the second problem the courtroom sided with the County,
holding that the County did have the discretion to approve the
501(c)(3) that’s to obtain the animal:
.Given the breadth of the County’s responsibility to launch
“any
canine,” granting the County the discretion to make sure
that the entity to whom a canine is launched
appropriately qualifies as an animal rescue or
adoption organization facilitates the protected and
applicable placement of dogs. We conclude that the
Legislature meant to confer discretion on the County to qualify
organizations as animal rescue or adoption
organizations via implies that the County
determines are applicable. [Slip op. at 17.]
So, if a professional rescue organization in Los Angeles comes
calling for a canine scheduled for euthanasia, the County can not
merely euthanize the animal however should give it up. This choice is
in all probability a lift for no-kill shelters and different organizations that
do their finest to cut back the incidence of pet euthanasia via
re-homing efforts.
Disclaimer: This Alert has been
ready and printed for informational functions solely and isn’t
supplied, nor ought to be construed, as authorized recommendation. For extra
data, please see the agency’s
full disclaimer.
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration from United States
