12/30/2024
We sure do love watching Bad Animal Shelters, Bad Animal Shelter Directors and Bad Animal Shelter Policies Lose!
We have the Court Reporter's Trancript from the landmark ruling PAF v. San Diego Humane Society!
A Huge Victory For the True Animal Advocates On The Right Side Of History!!
The Truth Won!
The Facts Won!
The Law Won!
And Most Importantly The Cats Won! 💪💪👊🏼👊🏼.
Do Better San Diego Humane Society!
There you have it! Ruling that San Diego Humane Society is indeed VIOLATING California Animal Protection laws by dumping friendly cats by the thousands on our streets…while being paid handsomely by San Diego taxpayers to care for them. Deceiving the community- closed cat adoption centers and started dumping cats for the coyotes, traffic, no food or water or caregivers.
The text from the court transcript is below.
If anyone would like a copy of the transcript please email or text us.
In The Superior Court Of The State Of California
In And For The County Of San Diego
Department 63; Hon. KATHERINE BACAL, Judge
PET ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )
vs. ) Case No. 37-2021-00007375
) CU-MC-CTL
SAN DIEGO HUMANE SOCIETY )
and SPCA, ) Defendants. )
________________________________)
Reporter's Transcript
DECEMBER 20, 2024
Appearances:
For Plaintiff(s): Pease Law APC
3960 Point Loma Bouleverd W H-2562, San Diego, California 92110
Bryan Pease, Esq.
Parisa Ijadi-Maghsoodi, Esq.
Also present
For Defendant(s): O'Melveny & Myers LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Chris Hollinger, Esq.
Betsy Denhart (Pet Assistance Foundation)
DECEMBER 20, 2024; San Diego, California 2:16 P.M.
THE COURT: Pet Assistance versus San Diego
Humane Society. My apologies to all of you for keeping you waiting; it's not always like that. I do have a request for appointment of court reporter that I'm signing at this time. The matter is being reported.
We'll get appearances for the record, please.
MR. PEASE: Good afternoon, your Honor. Bryan Pease representing plaintiffs Pet Assistance and Terrence Higgins.
MS. IJADI-MAGHSOODI: Good afternoon, your Honor Parisa Ijadi-Maghsoodi also representing plaintiffs.
MR. PEASE: And we have Betsy Denhart from Pet Assistance Foundation as well.
MR. HOLLINGER: Chris Hollinger representing the defendant, San Diego Humane Society.
THE COURT: Good afternoon to everyone. Again, my apologies for keeping you waiting. I appreciated the briefing; I certainly appreciated the argument and the testimony.
This is and has been one of the most
interesting cases that I have had. This is the Court's intended decision under the Rules of Court, in particular,
3.1590(a), it will become the Court's statement of decision unless a party timely requests a statement of
decision.
If a statement of decision is timely requested, plaintiff will be ordered to file and serve the proposed
statement of decision pursuant to the Rules of Court with, under the San Diego Superior Court local rules, a courtesy
copy directly to this department.
The Court states that all deadlines in the
California Rules of Court apply unless the parties
stipulate to some other time frame in which case the Courtwould be happy to accept the stipulation. If I could accept a stipulation that would avoid anyone working over
the holidays, I would be happy to do that.
If there is no appropriate request for statement of decision, plaintiffs will be directed to prepare a
proposed judgment, serving that on the other side pursuant to the timeframes in the Rules of Court.
The Court notes that according to the first
amended petition, there are two remaining causes of action: For injunctive and declaratory relief. In a
nutshell, the question was: Does San Diego Humane Society's policy that, with some limited exceptions, only cats with verifiable signs of ownership will be received
into the shelter and, otherwise, healthy cats, whether feral or friendly, will be back into the community violates any law.
Before I get to the heart of the ruling, I do
want to mention that it is the Court's view that everybody who came and testified in this court wants what they
believe is the best for the cat population and cats in general.
The difference of opinion as to what these
people believe is best results, at least in part, from the parties differing viewpoints. San Diego Humane Society is looking at it from a cat population perspective, maybe
more appropriately, a sheltered cat population perspective while the plaintiffs are looking at it from the perspective that the animals with which they come into
contact.
That doesn't mean that any side or either side doesn't want what's best -- or what they believe is best.
It's not the Court's obligation to decide what is best for any animals. The only obligation is to decide what is lawful.
In that regard, the Court looked at all of the
statutory authorities cited by the parties, including Penal Code Section 597(s) dealing with willful abandonment; Penal Code 597.1 dealing with the Humane
Society officers' requirement to take possession of stray and/or abandoned animals that don't have proper care and
attention; and, further, being required to provide care and treatment until that animal can be returned to its owner; and Civil Code Section 1860(c) stating that a
shelter with whom a abandoned animal is deposited is required to take charge of it.
I also reviewed closely the county -- excuse
me -- the Humane Society's contract with the county. I note that pursuant to Exhibit 310, page 5 of 16 of that
exhibit, paragraph 7, San Diego Humane Society is required to pick up and care for stray, domestic animals contained
by residents and found within the city limits.
I also note I've reviewed the exhibits that were received into evidence, again, along with the applicable case law. Domestic would seem to me not feral.
Under the statutes, feral means unsocialized to people. I would also note that I reviewed closely the testimony of the
experts and, in particular, plaintiff's -- excuse me - defendant's expert Dr. Hurley who testified that she was not aware that San Diego Humane Society requires verifiable proof of ownership.
And she noted other indicia of ownership or
abandonment might include a cat suddenly showing up in a location, especially if that cat is spayed or neutered, and that there could be other issues with regard to kittens, meaning, cats up to six months of age.
In closing brief, the defendant seemed to change the policy or at least the argument as to that San Diego Humane Society's policy from verifiable signs of ownership
to reliable indicia of ownership, but that is not the current policy.
And I will cite to Exhibit 310, Exhibit F
which states what the current policy of the Humane Society is.
The Court finds that including domesticated cats in the definition of community cats and returning to the community domesticated cat without a known caretaker would
violate the law and that the San Diego Humane Society policy as to kittens who are assessed for sociability before they are taken in is too narrow.
That's the Court's finding. Again, I direct the
plaintiff to prepare a proposed statement of decision if this is a request for a statement of decision.
Any questions?
MR. PEASE: Not from plaintiffs, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HOLLINGER: Nothing for the defendant, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Nice to see all of you again. Thank
you.
(Proceeding concluded at 2:23 p.m.)
