Sharon Logan Lawsuit against OCAC (amended)

Howard D. Finkelstein (Bar #102964)
FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
San Diego, CA 92101-3579
Tel: 619-238-1333
Fax: 619-238-5425
hdf@classactionlaw.com
Attorney for Petitioners
SHARON LOGAN and
PAW PROTECTORS, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE NO. 30-2014-00736691SHARON LOGAN, an individual; PAW
PROTECTORS, INC., a Not For Profit
corporation,
Plaintiff and Petitioners,
VS.
ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL CARE;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants and Respondents.
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
(C.C.P. § 526a; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Plaintiffs, Sharon Logan and Paw Protectors, Inc., bring this Verified Second Amended
Complaint for a writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1085, et seq., and for
injunctive relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §526a, and 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging as
follows against Defendants and Respondents Orange County Animal Care and Does 1 through 10.
— 1 —
602515311v1 VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION
1. Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in an ongoing pattern and
practice of animal abuse and failure to comply with California state law and Orange County
ordinances, as well as its own Policies and Procedures in operating the Orange County Animal
Care shelter ("OCAC"). Defendants' consistent violations of law, as set forth in this Petition and
Complaint, have resulted in the senseless and wrongful killing of impounded animals, in direct
contravention of the State of California's policy, codified in both state and local law and in
OCAC' s Policies and Procedures, to promote adoption over death for animals in their custody.
Moreover, when Plaintiffs have attempted to speak out against Defendants' unlawful conduct and
practices, Defendants have taken retaliatory actions against Plaintiffs, thereby depriving Plaintiffs
of their constitutional rights. By this Petition and Complaint, Plaintiffs ask this Court to order
Defendants to cease and desist from further violations of law, and to promptly begin performing
their legally-mandated duties to the animals entrusted to their care and to the public at large.
THE PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Logan is, and at all relevant times, was a citizen, taxpayer and resident of
Orange County, California.' Plaintiff Logan regularly volunteers for Plaintiff Paw Protectors, Inc.
and other nonprofit animal rescue groups that redeem impounded animals from Orange County
shelters, provide foster care and medical and behavioral rehabilitation to such animals, as needed,
1 Plaintiff Paw Protectors, Inc. is also based in Orange County, and as a result both Plaintiffs
routinely pay taxes associated with their residence therein. In addition, while residing in Orange
County in December of 2013, Plaintiff Logan purchased a used vehicle from a private owner and
paid a use tax upon the transfer of title for the vehicle. The use tax is collected by the
Department of Motor Vehicles (on behalf of the State Board of Equalization) upon transfer of
vehicle title. Cal. Veh. Code § 4750.5. The tax is assessed upon the new owner based upon the
sales price of the vehicle and the owner's county/city of residence as a portion of such tax is
transferred back to the applicable city and county. See DMV website @
haps://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast facts/ffvr34. The vehicle was
used by Plaintiff Logan both for personal purposes and on behalf of Paw Protectors, Inc. in the
conduct of its charitable mission.
—2—

and then place the animals into suitable adoptive homes, with the mission to reduce the killing of
homeless animals by the County shelters pursuant to California State and local legal mandates. In
connection with her volunteer work, Plaintiff Logan regularly visits the County shelters,
particularly the OCAC shelter located in the City of Orange, to spend time with and evaluate the
condition of the animals impounded there.
3. Plaintiff Logan is the founder and Executive Director of Plaintiff Paw Protectors
Inc, which engages in the business of providing various services relating to the protection of
animals. Plaintiff Paw Protectors, Inc., at all times relevant hereto was a nonprofit charitable
corporation, qualified under Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3), organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California. Founded on March 9, 2011, Paw Protectors, Inc. is dedicated to
saving the lives of lost, abandoned, abused, and neglected animals in the custody of local animal
shelters. Among other things, Paw Protectors, Inc. presents seminars and provides consulting
services on reforming traditional animal shelters and implementing laws designed to reduce and
ultimately eliminate the killing of healthy or treatable impounded animals. As a result of
Defendants' violations of law as set forth herein, Paw Protectors, Inc. has been frustrated in its
efforts to save animals from death at the OCAC shelter, and Paw Protectors, Inc. has been forced
to divert resources from its regular programs to, among other things, consulting on, monitoring,
and investigating conditions at the OCAC shelter.
4. Defendant OCAC is a political subdivision of the State of California duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with animal shelter facilities
located at 561 The City Drive South, Orange, California 92868.
5. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities, whether individual,
corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure §474. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the
Defendants designated as a Doe is responsible in some manner for the incidents herein referred to,
and thereby proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiffs as herein alleged. Plaintiffs
—3—
602515311x1 VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

will seek leave of this Court to further amend this Complaint to set forth the Defendants' true
names and capacities when the same have been ascertained.
6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief
allege, that at all times herein mentioned, each of said actually named and fictitiously named
Defendants was the principal, agent, or employee of the other actually named or fictitiously named
Defendants, and acting either as a principal, or within the course and scope of such employment or
agency, took some part in the acts or omissions hereinafter set forth, by reason of which each of
said fictitiously named and actually named Defendants is liable to Plaintiffs for the relief prayed
for herein.
7. During all events herein complained of, Defendants, and each of them, did the acts
and things complained of and alleged pursuant to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to damage
Plaintiffs and other members of the Orange County community. Said conspiracy by each
Defendant was either accomplished by the knowing cooperation, mutual aid, and encouragement,
and knowledge of Defendants, and each of them, with the adoption and ratification of the acts of
the Defendants, and each of them.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
8. In 1998, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1785 ("SB 1785," also
referred to as the "Hayden Law"). The purpose of SB 1785 was to shift California's animal
shelter system in the direction of saving, rather than taking, the lives of animals delivered to the
care of the animal shelters located throughout the State. SB 1785 addressed this goal by, among
other things, making animal shelters throughout the State, and the animals held there, more
accessible to the public and to animal rescue organizations, and making the animal shelters more
accountable for the treatment of the animals entrusted to their care.
9. SB 1785 is currently codified in various places throughout the Civil Code, the Food
and Agricultural Code, and the Penal Code. In all three Codes, the Legislature specifically
codified the State's policy favoring life by rehoming, over death, for shelter animals:
—4—

• "It is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it
can be adopted into a suitable home." Cal. Civ. Code § 1834.4(a); Cal. Food &
Ag. Code § 17005(a); Cal. Penal Code § 599d(a)
• "It is the policy of the state that no treatable animal should be euthanized." Cal.
Civ. Code § 1834.4(b); Cal. Food & Ag. Code § 17005(b); Cal. Penal Code §
599d(b).
10. The Legislature further mandated that: "A depositary of living animals shall
provide the animals with necessary and prompt veterinary care, nutrition, and shelter, and treat
them kindly. Any depositary that fails to perform these duties may be liable for civil damages as
provided by law."2 Cal. Civ. Code § 1834.
11. To accomplish the State policy of saving rather than killing impounded animals and
requiring humane treatment, existing State law now imposes upon all animal shelters located
within the State a series of life-affirming duties, including, among other things, and without
limitation:
a. To hold and make impounded animals available for adoption or owner
redemption for a statutory holding period of at least four to six business
days3, depending on shelter hours of operation, and not including the day of
impoundment, unless the animals are irremediably suffering from a serious
illness or severe injury, or are unweaned newborns who have been taken in
2 In fiscal year 2009-2010 California suspended from funding the requirement of the Hayden Law
within Section 1834 for "necessary and prompt veterinary care" but the remaining portions of
Section 1834 remain unaffected. See, Current Enforceability of the Hayden Law of 1998,
Taimie L. Bryant, attached as Exhibit A. In addition, any pre-existing requirements for
veterinary care, such as those found in Penal Code section 597f, are not impacted by any
funding suspension.
3
Similarly, this provision of the Hayden Law was not funded beginning in 2009 due to the state
budget crisis. See, Current Enforceability of the Hayden Law of 1998, Taimie L. Bryant.
However, the prior law required that all impounded animals be held for a minimum of 72 hours
(Food & Ag. Code, §31754), which would apply even if this provision of the Hayden Law is
currently suspended.
—5—

without their mother, or, in the case of owner- relinquished dogs only, if the
dog has a history of vicious or dangerous behavior documented by the by
the agency charged with enforcing state and local animal laws, in order to
allow owners or other members of the public time to reclaim or adopt the
animals. See Cal. Food & Ag. Code § 31108(a), § 31752(a), § 17006, §
31108.5(b);
b. To work cooperatively with nonprofit animal rescue and/or adoption
organizations to promote adoption and reduce the rate of shelter killing,
including but not only by releasing any animals scheduled to be put to death
to such organizations when the organizations request to redeem those
animals, except in the limited circumstances when (i) the animals are
irremediably suffering from a serious illness or severe injury, or (ii) the
animals are dogs that have been adjudicated after a proper hearing pursuant
to Food & Ag. Code, §§31601, et seq., to be so vicious that their release
would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. See
Food & Ag. Code § 31108(b), § 31752(b); § 17006, § 31645(a);
c. To treat impounded animals kindly and humanely, with proper care and
attention, and provide them with adequate nutrition, shelter and water, and
appropriate veterinary care, during the period of their impoundment. See
Cal. Civ. Code § 1834, Cal. Pen. Code § 597(b), Cal. Pen. Code § 597.1(a),
Cal. Pen. Code § 597f(b); and
d. To keep specified and accurate records on all impounded animals and to
perform reasonable identification and tracking measures to enable shelters,
rescuers, to rescue animals within the shelter system. See Cal. Food & Ag.
Code § 32003; Cal. Pen. Code § 597.1.
12. Consistent with this state-mandated policy, Orange County Board of Supervisors
enacted Title 4, Division 1, Article 7, Animal Impoundment (Ord. No. 2836, §8, 5-6-75; Ord. No.
2908, §1, 5-4-76, which governs the impoundment of animals under certain circumstances and
specifically provides:
a. If a licensed animal is not redeemed within seven (7) days of impoundment,
excluding County holidays and the day of impoundment (three (3) days for unlicensed
animals), it shall be deemed abandoned and the Director may sell, release, or destroy said
animal. (Ord. No. 2836, §8, 5-6-75; Ord. No. 2908, §1, 5-4-76)
13. Defendant OCAC' s own policy provides:
a. When a lost pet is found OC Animal Care will check for a name tag, license
tag and microchip. If the animal has any type of identification, the owner will be contacted
... Pets brought into the shelter, examined by a shelter vet, vaccinated and placed in one of
our kennels.
—6—

b. Lost pets are provided daily care and their photo and information is placed
into our Lost Pets page on our website. Lost pets are held for their owners to claim them
for 4-10 days depending on what city they came in from and whether or not they had
identification.
14. In violation of these and other mandatory duties imposed by law, Plaintiffs and
other nonprofit rescues and other reputable sources personally witnessed and documented
accounts of hundreds of animals since, at least 2011, euthanized with false and unsupported
diagnosis of illness or aggressive behavior.
15. Defendants routinely euthanized healthy and adoptable animals without first
holding the animals for the minimum period of time mandated by law on the basis of
impermissible criteria including, but not limited to; (1) ill or injured, but treatable, or untreatable
but not irremediably suffering; (2) geriatric; (3) aggressive but without a documented history of
vicious or dangerous behavior; (4) animals that have technically been impounded for a sufficient
period of time, but have been given no meaningful opportunity for reunification with their owners
or adoption, because Defendants segregate such animals in sections of their shelters that are not
readily accessible to the public; (5) failed to release animals scheduled to be put to death to
nonprofit rescue and/or adoption organizations that are willing to take them when the animals are
not irremediably suffering from any serious illness or severe injury, and are not dogs that have
been adjudicated after a proper hearing to be so vicious that their release would create a significant
threat to the public health, safety, or welfare.
16. Plaintiffs further allege, based upon personal and other observations, that the
Defendants routinely violates its own policies by, inter alia, failing to contact purebred rescue
organizations before killing purebred animals, to determine whether such specialized
organizations are able to take those animals. Thus, purebred animals are habitually killed when
rescue organizations that might have been willing and able to save them are unaware of their
existence at the shelters.
—7—

17. Plaintiffs further allege, based on personal and other observations that the
Defendants routinely failed to treat animals kindly and humanely, including but not limited to,
adequate water, shelter, and exercise.
Defendants routinely failed to provide impounded animals with adequate and appropriate
veterinary attention. Cal. Civ. Code §§1815, 1834; Cal. Pen. Code §§ 597f, 597.1. Injured and ill
animals have been brought to the OCAC and have been left in cages without any veterinary care.
In other instances, animals have been injured after impoundment but have not received adequate
and appropriate veterinary care.
Defendants routinely failed to keep required and accurate records on impounded animals and to
perform reasonable identification and tracking measures to enable shelters, rescuers, rescue
organizations, and owners to locate animals within the shelter system.
Defendants further violated their statutory obligation to promote life-saving alternatives to killing
impounded animals because, amongst other things, the OCAC is consistently understaffed and
staffed with employees who cannot provide responses to basic and reasonable public requests for
assistance, including but not limited to, assisting the public with adoptions or reunification of
animals with owners. For example, telephones at the OCAC shelters are left unanswered,
preventing people who are calling to inquire about lost animals or to adopt from receiving any
information from shelter staff. As a result, many animals that may otherwise be reunited with
their owners or adopted are unnecessarily euthanized during their statutory holding period. The
lack of adequate shelter staff also contributes to significant difficulties when members of the
public visit shelters to adopt animals. People are unnecessarily often kept waiting for several
hours to visit animals they are interested in adopting. On various occasions, people interested in
adopting particular animals have left the shelters in frustration without ever getting to see those
animals resulting in the needless euthanasia of animals.
—8—

21. These practices in violation of the state and local mandated policies and the
OCAC's own policy, establish a pattern of acting with a bias in favor of euthanasia to, amongst
other things, callously reduce the workload by eliminating their responsibility for properly caring
for these animals.
22. Plaintiff Logan, individually, and on behalf of Plaintiff Paw Protectors, Inc.
regularly complained of the above violations of both the law and OCAC stated policy. In apparent
retaliation for such complaints, Defendants undertook various retaliatory actions against Plaintiffs,
including but not limited to, indefinitely suspending Plaintiffs from rescuing any animals by
refusing to release numerous requested animals to allow for their care instead of euthanizing said
animals. For example, when Plaintiff Logan, as an individual and on behalf of Paw Protectors,
Inc., complained to OCAC staff and the public about an apparent violation of law in connection
with the immediate euthanasia of a seemingly healthy young dog, OCAC immediately terminated
Paw Protector, Inc.'s Adoption Partner association with OCAC, effectively depriving it of the
ability to be able to redeem animals prior to euthanasia, as required for 501(c)(3) organizations
pursuant to California law. See Food & Ag. Code § 31108(b), § 31752(b); § 17006, § 31645(a).
When Plaintiff Logan failed to refrain from public speech about OCAC's conduct thereafter,
OCAC instituted additional retaliatory actions, including but not limited to refusing to allow
Plaintiff Logan (as an individual or on behalf of Paw Protectors, Inc.) to adopt dogs and barring
her from OCAC property. As a consequence of Defendants' retaliatory actions, Plaintiffs have
been prevented from rescuing and finding homes for animals that the OCAC has euthanized in
violation of the applicable law and its own stated policy.
23. In addition, Plaintiff Logan has been informed by members of other rescue
organizations and other volunteers that they are now afraid to complain about OCAC's violations
in fear that similar retaliatory actions will be taken against them and interfere with their own
rescue and volunteer activities. Therefore, OCAC' s retaliatory actions have not only attempted to
chill Plaintiffs' exercise of free speech, but in fact have been successful in restricting the speech of
others who fear suffering from similar retaliation.
—9—

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Petition for Writ of Mandate
(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)
24. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and all of the allegations
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition and Complaint, as though fully set forth
herein.
25. Defendants have a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to comply with all the
provisions of law set forth above, among others, regarding the proper care and treatment of
impounded animals.
26. Defendants routinely violate the law by, among other things, ( i) failing to hold and
make animals available for adoption or owner redemption for the full statutorily-required holding
period; (ii) killing animals before expiration of the minimum statutory holding period on the basis
of impermissible criteria and/or erroneous classifications; (iii) segregating animals in sections of
the shelters that are not readily accessible to the public, so the animals have little to no chance of
being found by their owners or adopted into new homes; (iv) failing to release animals scheduled
to be put to death to nonprofit rescue and/or adoption organizations that request to redeem those
animals when the animals are not immediately suffering from any serious illness or severe injury,
and are not dogs that have been adjudicated after a proper hearing pursuant to Food & Ag. Code
§§31601, et seq., to be so vicious that their release would create a significant threat to the public
health, safety, or welfare; (v) failing to treat impounded animals kindly and humanely, including
failing to provide them with adequate nutrition, water, shelter, and exercise, and with prompt and
appropriate veterinary care; (vi) failing identification and tracking measures to enable shelters,
rescuers, rescue organizations, and owners to locate animals within the shelter system, and (vii)
failing to provide reasonable assistance to members of the public inquiring about reclaiming or
adopting impounded animals.
27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of law as set forth above,
but without limitation, in this Petition and Complaint, Plaintiffs have suffered direct and
— 10 —

particularized injury to their right to rescue animals impounded by the OCAC. Plaintiff Logan has
personally observed animals locked in filthy kennels, where the animals were forced to stand or lie
in their own feces and urine, without access to water or with access only to murky, dirty water;
dead animals lying in kennels alongside live animals; sick or injured animals suffering in kennels
without veterinary attention; and animals locked in the outside area of their kennels with no access
to shade.
28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of law as set forth above,
but without limitation, in this Petition and Complaint, Plaintiffs have been frustrated in their
efforts to save animals from death at the shelters, has been forced to divert resources from its
regular programs to, among other things, consulting on, monitoring, and investigating conditions
at Defendants' shelter.
29. Plaintiff Logan has on a number of occasions notified Defendants of Defendants'
failure to comply with their legal obligations and requested that Defendants undertake all
reasonable and necessary measures to comply with the applicable law. Defendants have and
continue to fail to respond to Plaintiffs' demands.
30. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies available, or are excused from
exhausting such remedies because Plaintiffs are seeking to enforce a public, rather than private
right, or as a result of futility of pursuing such remedies, amongst other things, (a) Plaintiffs have
no administrative remedy and no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The only remedy provided by law for Plaintiffs to obtain relief is this Petition for Writ of Mandate
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§1085, et seq., (b) Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if
the relief requested herein is not granted, as will the public at large; and (c) this litigation, if
successful, will result in enforcement of a public duty and/or important public rights affecting the
public interest, including, without limitation, the public's right to compel Defendants to comply
with state laws concerning the proper care and treatment of impounded animals, and with the state
policy of saving and re-homing, instead of euthanizing such animals.
— 11 —

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Claim For Injunctive Relief Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 526a
(Against All Defendants)
herein.
32. By engaging in the unlawful acts and omissions set forth in this Petition and
Complaint, among other violations of law pertaining to the treatment and care of impounded
animals, Defendants have and continue to illegally expend and/or waste public funds allocated to
the running of the OCAC shelter system. Defendants pay for the killing and disposal of the bodies
of animals that could have been returned to their owners or placed into new homes, with positive
net revenue resulting to the County in the form of impoundment or adoption fees. Defendants also
pay shelter operation expenses such as equipment, supply, and utility costs and salaries to shelter
staff members who fail to perform basic practices mandated by law, such as: (i) holding and
making animals available for adoption or owner redemption for the minimum statutorily required
period; (ii) accurately classifying animals upon impoundment to avoid wrongful euthanizing; (iii)
making impounded animals accessible to the public for viewing, to facilitate owner redemption or
adoption; (iv) releasing animals scheduled to be euthanized to nonprofit rescue and/or adoption
organizations like Plaintiff Paw Protectors, Inc. that are willing to reasonably care for these
animals when the animals are irremediably suffering from a serious illness or severe injury, or are
dogs that have been adjudicated after a proper hearing pursuant to Food & Ag. Code,§§31601, et
seq., to be so vicious that their release would create a significant threat to the public health, safety,
or welfare; (v) treating impounded animals kindly and humanely, including but not to, cleaning
their kennels, and providing the animals with water, shelter, exercise, and prompt and necessary
veterinary care; (vi) keeping required and accurate records on impounded animals and performing
reasonable identification and tracking measures to enable shelters, rescuers, rescue organizations,
— 12 —

and owners to locate animals within the shelter system; and (vii) providing reasonable assistance
to members of the public who call or visit the shelters to inquire about a particular animal.
33. Plaintiffs, as citizens and taxpayers of the County of Orange, are entitled pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure § 526a to a judgment in the form of a judicial injunction restraining
and preventing Defendants from continuing to illegally expend and/or waste public funds in the
manner described in this Petition and Complaint.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Claim For Injunctive Relief Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against All Defendants)
herein.
35. As set forth in this Petition and Complaint, Defendants have, under color of law,
taken retaliatory actions against Plaintiffs including, but not limited to, a pattern of antagonism
including the termination of Paw Protector, Inc.'s Adoption Partner status soon after Plaintiffs
were warned about continuing to complain to the staff and media regarding OCAC's violations of
the law and its own policies in an attempt to hold Defendants accountable for their actions, and
culminating in the denial of all adoption privileges to Plaintiff Logan and Paw Protectors, Inc.
when Plaintiffs thereafter continued to speak publically about OCAC's unlawful conduct.
36. Defendants' actions in retaliating against Plaintiffs have violated Plaintiffs' rights
to freedom of speech and to petition for redress of grievances, as guaranteed by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
37. Furthermore, Defendants retaliatory actions have chilled the freedom of speech and
right to petition for redress of grievances of other nonprofit rescues as well as other persons who
have complained of Defendants' violations.
38. Plaintiffs demand that Defendants cease and desist from violating their
Constitutional rights, and rescind the retaliatory actions they have taken against them.
— 13 —

FINKELS I IN & KRINSK LLP
.5
Howard D. Finkelstein
Attorney for Petitioners SHARON LOGAN and
PAW PROTECTORS, INC.
39. Defendants have failed to respond to Plaintiffs' demand.
40. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief restraining
and preventing Defendants from continuing to violate their constitutional rights by taking
retaliatory actions against them because of their exercise of those rights.
41. Plaintiffs have no administrative remedy and no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law to prevent Defendants from continuing to violate their constitutional
rights. The only remedy provided by law for Plaintiffs to obtain relief from Defendants'
continuing violation of their constitutional rights is this claim for injunctive relief pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983.
42. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the injunctive relief requested herein is not
granted.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
1. For injunctive relief;
5. For Plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees;
6. For Plaintiff's costs of suit; and
7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DATED: February 13, 2015
—14—

CURRENT ENFORCEABILITY OF THE HAYDEN LAW OF 1998
Taimie L. Bryant *
Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.
INTRODUCTION
In 1998 California enacted a comprehensive set of laws, known as the Hayden
Law, designed to move California's animal shelters in the direction of saving
more animals' lives through consolidation of pre-existing legal requirements
pertaining to animal shelters and emphasis on adoption and owner-redemption
of lost pets. In 2000, the Hayden Law was challenged on financial grounds by
city and county governments. The challenge was brought before the Commis-
sion on State Mandates (Commission), which is charged with deciding claims
by local government that the State owes them money for the implementation of
laws at the local level.
Although the California Legislature and the California Department of Finance
had concluded that compliance with the Hayden Law would reduce the costs of
animal sheltering by saving animals through adoption and owner-redemption,
the Commission ruled that some of the individual laws in the Hayden Law
require State reimbursement for costs local governments incur for compliance.
(Commission on State Mandates, Statement of Decision, 98-TC-11). In accor-
dance with that decision, the State has been paying local governments to com-
ply with those parts of the Hayden Law that require state reimbursement.
During the recent state budget crisis, however, the Governor and the Legisla-
ture decided not to provide reimbursement during the 2009-2010 fiscal year. It
is important to note that those laws have not been repealed and will become
enforceable when funded in future budgets. For now, though, the unfunded
laws are unenforceable for the period of time that the current budget is in effect.
The primary change that has occurred is that the holding period for stray and
owner-relinquished animals has dropped from 4 or 6 days, depending on the
hours the shelter is open, to 72 hours. Even so, there may well be local laws or
animal shelter policies/guidelines that require longer holding periods. Those
* One of the principal drafters of the Hayden Law.
1

laws or policies and guidelines must be followed even if the State requires no
more than 72 hours.
Not all of the laws enacted as part of the Hayden Law were deemed by the
Commission on State Mandates to require State reimbursement. Those parts of
the Hayden Law remain in effect regardless of California's budgetary situation
because they do not require State reimbursement of local government for com-
pliance costs.
HAYDEN LAW PROVISIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUSPENDED AND WHICH
REMAIN IN EFFECT.
The Commission on State Mandates decided that the provisions below do not
require State reimbursement. Since the following parts of the Hayden Law are
not affected by the State's budget in any way, the following remain in effect:
A. Owner-relinquished animals.
A shelter may not kill an owner-relinquished animal without holding the animal
for the minimum 72 hours that stray cats and dogs must be held under state law
(Food and Agricultural Code section 31754). That is true regardless of the
species of the owner-relinquished animal and regardless of an owner's ex-
pressed wishes that his/her animal be killed. The Commission decided that the
law does not require shelters to take in owner-relinquished animals but does
require shelters to provide a holding period if shelters decide to take in owner-
relinquished animals. Shelters have the choice of rejecting owner-relinquished
animals or accepting owner-relinquished animals and holding them for owner-
redemption and adoption for the same period as stray cats and dogs. Shelters
may not kill owner-relinquished animals before the statutory holding period of
72 hours has elapsed, with or without the owners' permission. (Food and Agri-
cultural Code section 31754) Only animals who are irremediably suffering'
The question of what constitutes irremediable suffering was litigated in 2007. That
lawsuit against Los Angeles County, resulted in the following definition:
An animal with a medical condition who has a poor or grave prognosis for being
able to live without severe, unremitting pain despite necessary veterinary care.
2

from a serious illness or severe injury may be euthanized. (Food and Agricul-
tural Code section 17006.)
Please note: A particular shelter may be obligated by local laws
to hold animals longer than is required by state law. If a local
law requires a longer holding period, then that local law con-
trols the minimum holding period and not the state law of 72
hours. Owner-relinquished animals must be held for the same
period of time as is required for stray cats and dogs.
B. Scanning animals for microchip information and informing owners that
their animals are at the shelter.
The obligation to scan for microchips was added to the holding period statutes
in 2000, two years after the Hayden Law was enacted. It remains fully in effect.
Civil Code section 2080, which pre-existed the Hayden Law, requires finders of
lost property to make reasonable efforts to notify the owner, when the owner is
known. Therefore, if the required microchip scanning reveals information about
an owner, the shelter must make reasonable efforts to inform the owner of the
whereabouts of his/her lost animal and take reasonable care of the animal until
the owner can reclaim the animal. Civil Code section 2080 provides that public
shelters can charge the owner with the costs of maintaining the animal. Thus,
the Commission found, public shelters have sufficient fee authority to capture
the costs of providing reasonable care, including veterinary care, and the provi-
sion of caring for animals whose owner is known is not a state reimbursable
expense. The obligations to scan animals for microchips, to make reasonable
efforts to inform owners that their animals are at the shelter, and to maintain
those animals remain in effect without regard to California's budgetary situa-
tion.
C. Feral cats.
A shelter must hold stray feral cats for the same holding period as non-feral
cats. Feral cats must also receive the same opportunities for owner-redemption,
adoption, and release to an IRC section 501(c)(3) animal rescue and adoption
group if requested. The only provision of the Hayden Law that required reim-
bursement was temperament testing of cats, which would have excused shelters
from holding feral cats for the extended holding period that the Hayden Law
provided for stray and owner-relinquished cats. However, the statutory holding
period for all cats, regardless of temperament, has been reduced to 72 hours.
3

Please note: To the extent that shelters were killing feral cats
without holding them before the Hayden Law was enacted,
those shelters were violating the law that pre-dated the Hayden
Law. The law provided that all stray cats be held for 72 hours
and did not distinguish among cats on the basis of temperament.
A local law cannot override a state law by providing less protec-
tion than state law affords. Therefore, a local law that provides
for immediate euthanasia of feral cats would not override the
state law, which requires that feral cats be held for the same pe-
riod of time as other cats.
Also note: Local laws or policies may provide for a longer hold-
ing period than state law provides. It is important to determine
what the local law and policy is. The state law requires a mini-
mum of 72 hours and not a maximum of 72 hours; animals can
be held longer if local government decides to hold animals long-
er.
D. Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) animal rescue and adoption groups.
A shelter must allow Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) animal rescue and adop-
tion groups to take animals from the shelter. (Food and Agricultural Code
sections 31108, 31752, 31754) What this means is that a shelter cannot kill an
animal if a rescue group or No Kill shelter is willing to save that animal's life.
Rather than kill animals, shelters are still required to transfer these animals if
those groups request it. Shelters are still not permitted to withhold animals
because of temperament evaluation or add any other criteria beyond the re-
quirement that the groups be recognized as non-profits under Internal Revenue
Code section 501(c)(3).
Please note: The Commission decided that these laws provide
for a shelter, at its option, to charge such groups the same price
for adoption that members of the public pay. Because local gov-
ernment has sufficient fee authority, the State does not owe lo-
cal government reimbursement. However, the fact that the state
law allows shelters to charge rescue groups a fee does not mean
that shelters must charge such a fee. The state law gives local
government the option of requiring such a fee. If local govern-
ment does assess a fee, it can be no higher than that required of
members of the public.
4

E. Veterinary Care.
The Hayden Law provisions that require shelters to provide prompt and neces-
sary veterinary care continue in effect when:
1.the animal is an injured cat and dog who requires emergency
veterinary care;
2. the animal's owner is known (microchip information or tag
information or by seizure of the animal from someone's prop-
erty);
3.the animal is adopted or redeemed by the owner; or
4. the animal is released to a nonprofit animal rescue or adop-
tion organization.
The reason that prompt and necessary veterinary care is required for cats and
dogs in need of emergency medical care (1) is that providing such care was
already required by law before enactment of the Hayden Law. The reason that
prompt and necessary veterinary care is required for animals in the categories
(2) through (4) is because local government has sufficient fee authority to
collect those costs that the state need not reimburse local government for vet-
erinary expenditures incurred for those animals.
Please Note: Local government may be reluctant to provide vet-
erinary care under the circumstances of (2) through (4) above
because shelters cannot predict which animals will be redeemed
by their owners, adopted, or released to rescue groups. If an
animal is redeemed, adopted, or released to a rescue group, the
shelter could assess fees that enable the shelter to recapture the
veterinary costs it incurred. However, if an animal who receives
non-emergency veterinary care is not redeemed, adopted, or re-
leased to a rescue group, the shelter will not be able to recoup
its expenditure the State or any other entity. That uncertainty
may lead to a failure to provide any non-emergency veterinary
care to animals. However, the Legislature and the Governor
suspended only those parts of the Hayden Law that the Com-
mission on State Mandates deemed to be reimbursable state
mandates. The Commission decided that providing prompt and
necessary veterinary care to the animals listed above did not
trigger reimbursement by the State. Therefore, veterinary care
should be rendered to those animals, especially to animals
5

whose owner is known or when someone has requested an ani-
mal for adoption or when a rescue group has placed a hold on
an animal.
F. Records.
Shelters must maintain records of the whereabouts of animals and details of
veterinary care as to those animals who receive veterinary care. (Food and
Agricultural Code section 32003) That has not changed because those require-
ments pre-date the Hayden Law and are separately required under other laws
that regulate veterinary medical practice. The following records must be kept
for three years for each animal who receives veterinary care:
1. The date the animal was taken up, euthanized, or impounded;
2. The circumstances under which the animal is taken up, eutha-
nized, or impounded;
3. The names of the personnel who took up, euthanized, or im-
pounded the animal; and
4. 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.
G. Policies in Favor of Adoption and Reasonable Treatment to Make Animals
Adoptable.
California's state policies in favor of adoption instead of euthanasia of adopt-
able shelter animals and reasonable treatment of unadoptable animals who
could become adoptable remain in effect. (Civil Code section 1834.4, Food and
Agricultural Code section 17005, Penal Code section 599d). The Commission
on State Mandates found that these statutes do not mandate reimbursable duties.
They remain in effect to resolve ambiguities in particular laws or that arise
when two laws appear to conflict with each other. In those cases, the interpreta-
tion that saves animals' lives is the interpretation that will be legally preferred
to resolve any ambiguity or conflict between laws.
H. 14-Day Holding Period and Veterinary Care for Animals Seized under
Penal Code section 597.1.
Penal Code section 597.1 provides for a 14-day holding period for animals
seized under that section. The section also provides for veterinary care and
treatment for those animals. The Commission on State Mandates decided that
6

VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
I, the undersigned, declare:
X I am a party to this action. I have read the foregoing VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF and know its contents. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge,
except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, an as to those
matters, I believe them to be true.
I am an officer of [Corporation/Company], a party to this action, and am authorized to
make this verification for an on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I
have read the foregoing [TITLE] and know its contents. I am informed and believe that
the matters stated in it are true, and on the ground allege that the matters stated in it are
true.
I am a partner of [Corporation/Company], a party to this action, and am authorized to make
this verification for an on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I have
read the foregoing [TITLE] and know its contents. The matters stated in it are true of my
own knowledge, except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, an
as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
I am one of the attorneys for Plaintiff, a party to this action. Such party is unavailable, and
I make this verification for and on behalf of the party for that reason. I have read the
foregoing [TITLE] and know its contents. I am informed and believe that the matters
stated in it are true, and on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on February 13, 2015 at Costa Mesa, California.
By:
Sharon Logan, as an individual and on behalf of
Paw Protectors, Inc.
— 15 —

PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 245 Fischer Ave., Suite A-1,
Costa Mesa, California 92626.
On February 13, 2015, 1 served the foregoing document described as:
VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a
sealed envelope addressed as follows:
Nicholas S. Chrisos
333 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 407
Santa Ana, CA 92702-1379
(X) (BY MAIL) I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated above,
on the above-mentioned date. I am familiar with the firm's practice of collection
and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal
Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or
postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in
affidavit.
( ) (BY OVERNIGHT NEXT DAY DELIVERY) On the above-mentioned date, I
placed a true copy of the above-mentioned document(s) in a sealed envelope or
package designated by Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for,
addressed to the person(s) as indicated above and deposited same in a box or other
facility regularly maintained by Federal Express or delivered same to an authorized
courier or driver authorized by Federal Express to received documents.
() (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to
the offices of the addressee.
() (BY FACSIMILE) From facsimile number (714) 751-5428, I caused each such
document to be transmitted by facsimile machine, to the parties and numbers
indicated above, pursuant to Rule 2008. The facsimile machine 1 used complied
with California Rules of Court, Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the
machine. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e)(4), I caused the machine to print a transaction
record oldie transmission, a copy of which is attached to the original of this
declaration.
EXECUTED on October 10, 2014, at Costa Mesa, California.
(X) (STATE) I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the above is true and correct.
( ) (FEDERAL) I declare I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this
Court at whose direction service was made.
Glenda Burton
PROOF OF SERVICE
— 16 —
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Sharon Logan Lawsuit against OCAC (amended)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Sharon Logan Lawsuit against OCAC (amended)

Similar to Sharon Logan Lawsuit against OCAC (amended) (20)

More from No Kill Shelter Alliance

More from No Kill Shelter Alliance (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Sharon Logan Lawsuit against OCAC (amended)