This document is a memorandum of points and authorities in support of a motion to enforce a settlement agreement between Sharon Logan, Paw Protectors Inc. and Orange County Animal Care regarding the euthanasia of animals. It argues that Orange County Animal Care has failed to comply with both the Hayden Act and the revised policies and procedures agreed to in the settlement agreement by continuing to euthanize animals without proper independent corroboration. It requests that the court enforce the settlement agreement or extend the date to allow the parties to engage in further discussions as outlined in the agreement. Statistical analysis found issues such as 63% of owner requested euthanasia of dogs occurring within an hour of intake and the most common breeds euthan

1. SHARON 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.
CASE NO. 30-2014-00736691
ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
HON. DAVID R. CHAFFEE
DEPT. C-20
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO ENFORCE THE
SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO CCP
§ 664.6 OR TO EXTEND THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
DATE: December 1, 2017
TIME: 9:30 AM
DEPT: C-20
Bryan W. Pease (#239139)
3170 Fourth Ave., Ste. 250
San Diego, CA 92103
Tel: 619-723-0369
Fax: 619-923-1001
bryanpease@bryanpease.com
Attorney for Petitioners/Plaintiffs
SHARON LOGAN and
PAW PROTECTORS, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT
— 1 —
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW .4
IV. ARGUMENT 5
A. The Hayden Act 5
B. OCAC Policies and Procedures .7
C. OCAC Has Failed to Comply with Both the Hayden Act
and the Revised Policies and Procedures 11
D. In the Alternative. Plaintiff Requests that this Court Extend the
Date of the Settlement Agreement to Allow the Parties to Engage in the Meet and
Confer Process Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement 9
V. CONCLUSION 1.1
—2—
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT

3. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Fiore v. Alvord,
182 Cal. App. 3d 561 (1985) 5
Lofton v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,
230 Cal. App. 4th 1050 (2014) 5
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak,
90 Cal. App. 4th 600 (2001) 10
Zamora v. Claybom Contracting Group, Inc.,
28 Cal. 4th 249 (2002) 10
Statutes
California Civil Code
Section 1834 7
Section 1834.4(a) 5
Section 1834.4(b) 5
California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 664.6 4
California Food & Agriculture Code
Section 17005(a) 5
Section 17005(b) 5
Section 17006 6
Section 31108(a), § 31752(a) 6
Section 31108(b), § 31752(b) 6
Section 31108.5(b) 6
Section 32003 7
California Penal Code
Section 597(b) 7
Section 597f(b) 7
Section 597.1 7
—3—
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT

4. Section 597.1(a) 7
Section 599d(a) 5
Section 599d(b) 5
—4—
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT

5. I. INTRODUCTION
This case was filed three (3) years ago and settled two (2) years ago but has continued
through an extensive Monitoring Program set forth in ¶4 of the Settlement Agreement and Release
dated August 18, 2015 ("Settlement Agreement") the pertinent provisions of which are attached to
the Declaration of Howard D. Finkelstein ("Finkelstein Decl."), Exhibit A. Despite
collaboratively drafting new Policies and Procedures as the key part of the Settlement Agreement.
Defendant Orange County Animal Care ("OCAC") has continued to euthanize animals in
violation of the Hayden Act and the revised Policies and Procedures.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs Sharon Logan and Paw Protectors, Inc. filed their initial Pro Se Complaint on
July 29, 2014, and the First Amended Complaint on October 14, 2014. (Finkelstein Decl., 13).
After the hearing on Defendant OCAC's Demurrer, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a Second Amended
Complaint on March 23, 2015, which alleged that Defendant violated the Hayden Act's
requirements for certain time limits and determinations before euthanizing animals. (Finkelstein
Decl., 13). Pursuant to the Court's suggestion, the parties immediately undertook settlement
discussions and filed a Notice of Settlement and Settlement Agreement on August 26, 2015.
(Finkelstein Decl., 4).
The purpose of the Settlement Agreement was to assure that when an owner relinquishes
an animal, the owner's statement alone is not sufficient to justify euthanizing the animal without
additional independent corroboration. To that end, the parties revised OCAC's Policies and
Procedures to conform with the Hayden Act and incorporated these revised Policies and
Procedures into the Settlement Agreement. (Finkelstein Decl., 14). In particular, the revised
Policies and Procedures governing the euthanasia of aggressive animals requires one of five (5)
types of corroboration of the owner's statement before the animal could be euthanize for
— 1 —
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28

6. aggressive behavior. (See, OCAC Policies and Procedures §400.13; Finkelstein Decl., 15, Exhibit
A). The principal purpose of §400.13 was to ensure the OCAC could no longer euthanize an
animal solely based on the owner's request in order to satisfy the requirements of the Hayden Act
("It is the policy of the state that no treatable animal should be euthanized. A treatable animal
shall include any animal that is not adoptable but that could become adoptable with reasonable
efforts." Cal. Civ. Code §1834.4; Cal. Food & Ag. Code §17005 and the revised Policies and
Procedures, which expressly state that the "OCAC does not accept healthy, non-aggressive
animals for euthanasia." (OCAC Policies and Procedures §400.13.A.4; Finkelstein Decl., 16).
In order to guarantee Defendant's compliance, the Settlement Agreement included a two-
year Monitoring Program which required Defendant to submit monthly Euthanasia Reports to
Plaintiffs. (Finkelstein Decl., 17). The Settlement Agreement limited the number of files that
Plaintiffs could request five (5) animals per month for a total of sixty (60) animals per year.
(Finkelstein Decl., ¶7). The settlement agreement also provided that this Court would retain
jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until November 1, 2017. (Finkelstein Decl., 17).
Plaintiffs assembled a volunteer team, including a medical doctor, a retired attorney, a
paralegal, and a paid consultant veterinarian data analyst to analyze Defendant's Euthanasia
Reports on an ongoing basis to eventually identify the five (5) animals per month for which
Defendant would produce the entire electronic file. (Finkelstein Decl., 18). Dr. Sarah Lamere, the
data analyst/statistician consultant began to review the Euthanasia Reports with the initial report
from October 2015. (Lamere Decl., ¶3). The first monthly Euthanasia Report showed that OCAC
had euthanized 555 animals in the month of October 2015. (Lamere Decl., ¶3). Upon further
clarification of the reference to "L" in the Euthanasia Report, Katie Ingram, then Administrative
Manager 1 for OCAC explained in an e-mail that "The letter L (litter) is used for multiple
—2—
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUT'HORTI .LES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT

7. underage puppies and kittens..." As a result, the actual number of animals euthanized in that one
month was 725. See, Declaration of Sarah Lamere ("Lamere Decl."), ¶3, Exhibit C.
Given the unexpectedly large number of animals euthanized per month and in order to
control for seasonal and other variations in euthanizing trends, Dr. Lamere concluded that she
would need, at least, several months of data to analyze in order to "identify any trends, anomalies
or other significant factors." (Lamere Decl., ¶3). First, Dr. Lamere measured the amount of time
from an animal's intake to its euthanasia, and sorted euthanized animals into three categories:
owner-requested euthanasia, confiscated animal euthanasia, and stray euthanasia. (Lamere Decl.,
¶4). Second, Dr. Lamere focused on dogs, analyzing the proportions of breeds euthanized and
evaluating the time frames for the breeds that were commonly euthanized. (Lamere Decl., ¶4).
Last, Dr. Lamere evaluated and compared the proffered reasons for owner-requested euthanasia,
confiscated animal euthanasia, and stray euthanasia. (Lamere Decl., ¶4).
Dr. Lamere's findings revealed that 63% of owner-requested euthanasia of dogs occur
within an hour of the dog's intake, and the median dog euthanasia time at OCAC is forty-five
minutes. (Lamere Decl., ¶5; Lamere Decl., Exhibit D p.6, 8). The most frequently euthanized
breeds of dogs were pit bulls and Staffordshire terriers, which amounted to 28% of all dogs
euthanized. (Lamere Decl., ¶5; Lamere Decl., Exhibit D p.12). Dr. Lamere also found that 94%
of all cats euthanized by OCAC were stray cats, and 70% of cats were euthanized within a day of
intake. (Lamere Decl., ¶5; Lamere Decl., Exhibit D p.15-16). Notably, 60% of OCAC's stray
cats were euthanized for the stated reason that they were "too young." (Lamere Decl., ¶5; Lamere
Decl., Exhibit D p.20).
In addition to Dr. Lamere's statistical analysis, two of the volunteer team members also
requested approximately 250 files from the OCAC pursuant to the Public Records Act, CA Gov't
—3—
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28

8. Code §6252(b). Those files were received and reviewed over the course of approximately six (6)
months. In combination with the monthly review of the Euthanasia Reports, the data/statistical
analysis by Dr. Lamere and the files produced in response to the Public Records requests,
Plaintiffs were able to identify five (5) animals euthanized each month for eighteen (18) months
totaling ninety (90) files which were requested to be produced by letter dated August 4, 2017.
(See, Declaration of Brian W. Pease ("Pease Decl.") 914, Exhibit A).
The Defendants produced all of the ninety (90) files requested on August 4, 2017, on an
ongoing basis beginning September 7, 2017 and ending September 25, 2017. (Finkelstein Decl.,
18-9). Plaintiffs' document review team determined that sixty-nine (69) of the ninety (90)
animals euthanized did not comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement including OCAC's
revised Policies and Procedures. (Finkelstein Decl., (19). Plaintiffs then on October 13, 2017, sent
the required Notice of Noncompliance in accordance with the Settlement Agreement 115(a). See,
Finkelstein Decl., Exhibit A, Pease Decl. 9[5, Exhibit B. One week later, Defendant in response to
the Notice of Noncompliance asked for Plaintiffs to "more fully identify what [Plaintiffs]
consider[ed] to be the lack of compliance" regarding twenty-eight (28) of the sixty-nine (69)
animals euthanized. (Finkelstein Decl., 19; Pease Decl., ¶6, Exhibit C). By doing so Defendant
tacitly admitted that forty-one (41) animals were euthanized in violation of the Settlement
Agreement. (Finkelstein Decl., [9; Pease Decl., 16, Exhibit C).
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the
presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the
court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement." Cal. Civ. Proc.
Code §664.6. The proper standard of review of a trial court's ruling on a motion for entry of
judgment pursuant to the stipulated settlement is whether the ruling was supported by substantial
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
??
23
24
25
26
27
28
—4—
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT

9. evidence. Fiore v. Alvord, 182 Cal. App. 3d 561, 565 (1985). Furthermore, the court's retention
of jurisdiction after entering judgment on a stipulated settlement includes the court's equitable
authority, which is not restricted to setting aside the former judgment; the court has the power to
provide any appropriate including equitable remedy. Lofton v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 230
Cal. App. 4th 1050, 1062 (2014). Should this Court find sufficient support to enforce the
settlement, Plaintiff requests that the Court schedule a hearing for a preliminary injunction to
enjoin defendants from engaging in any conduct that violates the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. The Hayden Act
The California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1785 (SB 1785) in 1998, and it codified SB
1785 in various places throughout the Civil Code, the Food and Agricultural Code, and the Penal
Code. This bill, also known as the Hayden Law, sought to encourage animal shelters throughout
California to save the lives of the animals entrusted to their care instead of killing them.
Accordingly, the Hayden Law set forth two central policies to further this aim: first, "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). Second, "no treatable
animal should be euthanized." Cal. Civ. Code § 1834.4(b); Cal. Food & Ag. Code §17005(b);
Cal. Penal Code §599d(b).
...[U]nfortunately, in some California shelters the goal is still one of "street
cleaning" rather than housing for family reunification or adoption. In some places a
vicious cycle has become entrenched: shelters' experience with irresponsible
owners who refuse to spay/neuter or to limit their pets' roaming resulted in some
shelters concluding that owners wouldn't avail themselves of user-friendly hours or
spay/neuter programs. Restrictions on shelter hours and the lack of spay/neuter
accessibility have, in turn, increased the likelihood that people would behave in
apparently irresponsible ways. Lost and homeless companion animals have been
—5—
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28

10. caught in the middle and are dying in large numbers in California shelters. The
three 1998 bills adapted policies and procedures from California's premier shelters
so that the quality of shelter experience for all such helpless, hapless creatures
could be improved, even if not to the levels available in California's leading
shelters.
Taimie L. Bryant, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, Address to Maddie's Fund
(2004).
The Hayden Law accomplishes these policies by imposing a series of life-affirming duties
upon all animal shelters within the state. The first of these duties requires shelters to hold animals
for adoption or owner redemption for a period of at least four (4) to six (6) business days,
depending on the shelter's hours of operation, and not including the day of impoundment. See,
Cal. Food & Ag. Code §31108(a), §31752(a). The law includes exceptions for animals that
irremediably suffer from a serious illness or severe injury, or are unweaned newborns who have
been taken in without their mother. See, Cal. Food & Ag. Code §17006. Another specific
exception exists in the case of owner-relinquished dogs with a history of vicious or dangerous
behavior documented 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 §31108.5(b).
Second, shelters must work cooperatively with nonprofit animal rescue or adoption
organizations to promote adoption and reduce the rate of shelter killing. This includes, but is not
limited to releasing any animals scheduled to be put to death to animal rescue organizations when
the organizations asks to redeem those animals, except in limited circumstances when (i) the
animals are irremediably suffering from a serious 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, Cal. Food & Ag. Code § 31108(b), § 31752(b); § 17006, § 31645(a).
—6—
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORII1ES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT

11. Third, animal shelters have a duty 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).
Finally, shelters must keep specified and accurate records on all impounded animals and
perform reasonable identification and tracking measures to enable rescuers to rescue animals
within the shelter system. See Cal. Food & Ag. Code §32003; Cal. Pen. Code §597.1.
B. OCAC Policies and Procedures
The revised OCAC Policies and Procedures §400.13 sets forth the procedure for the
euthanasia or placement of owner-surrendered animals. "OCAC does not accept healthy, non-
aggressive animals for euthanasia." OCAC Policies and Procedures §400.13.A.4. However,
OCAC may euthanize an animal that irremediably suffers from a serious illness. OCAC Policies
and Procedures §400.13.A.4.a. and may also euthanize an animal that has dangerous or vicious
tendencies i.e., aggressive behavior. However, it is not sufficient to euthanize an animal based
solely on the owner's statement that it is aggressive. In addition to the owner's statement under
oath the OCAC must confirm one of five additional forms of independent corroboration to deem
the animal to be dangerous or vicious: (i) a Rabies Bite Report; (ii) a previous determination of
dangerous behavior from OCAC or from another shelter; (iii) documentation from OCAC field
staff attesting to they personally observed the animal's aggressive behavior; (iv) evidence
including six (6) different types of acceptable evidence that the animal caused aggressive injury or
death to another animal indicating the aggression was unprovoked; (v) a statement that the animal
behaved aggressively toward another human or animal on two separate occasions within the last
thirty-six (36) months and one (1) of four (4) separate independent types of evidence. OCAC
Policies and Procedures §400.13.A.4.b.i—v. (See, Finkelstein Decl., Exhibit A)
—7—
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
) )
23
24
25
26
27
28

12. Under OCAC Policies and Procedures §400.27, every shelter must Idlevelop and
document protocols in sufficient detail to achieve and maintain the standards described in this
document, and update them as needed to ensure that they reflect current information and pertinent
legislation." OCAC Policies and Procedures §400.27.11. Also, every shelter must establish "a
unique identifier (e.g. name and/or number) and record . . . for each animal upon intake." OCAC
Policies and Procedures §400.27.11. Moreover, every shelter should include, as basic elements of
each record for each animal, "the identifier (name and/or number), the results of microchip scan,
microchip number (if present), source of animal, dates of entry and departure, outcome, species,
age, gender, physical description (breed and colors) and available medical and behavioral
information." See, Finkelstein Decl., Exhibit A.
OCAC Policies and Procedures §400.27 also states that authorized employees of OCAC
may not euthanize stray animals or animals that have not met legal retention unless the animal
meets one of three criteria: the animal is "irredeemably suffering from a serious illness or severe
injury"; the animal is "a newborn animal that needs maternal care and has been impounded
without its mother"; or the animal is "an owner relinquished dog that has a documented history of
vicious or dangerous behavior." OCAC Policies and Procedures §§400.13 and 400.27.VI. See,
Finkelstein Decl., Exhibit A.
C. OCAC Has Failed to Comply with Both the Hayden Act
and the Revised Policies
In essence, the Settlement Agreement incorporating the revised Policies and Procedures
required that an animal surrendered by its owner to be euthanized for aggressive behavior can only
be euthanized if there is additional independent corroborating evidence that the animal has
exhibited potentially dangerous or vicious behavior. This additional required independent
corroborating evidence is set forth in detail in §400.13A4(b)i-v which section was extensively
—8—
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORII IES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT
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

13. negotiated to be included in the Settlement Agreement. Even with limited resources and an
unexpectedly large number of animals euthanized each month, Plaintiffs' volunteer team and
consultant were able to identify ninety (90) animals out of the thousands euthanized over the two
(2) year Monitoring Period which appeared to violate the revised Policies and Procedures and,
therefore, the Settlement Agreement. When confronted with the required Notice of
Noncompliance which identified sixty-nine (69) from the ninety (90) files reviewed, the
Defendant responded by requesting additional information supporting the Plaintiffs' claims as to
only twenty-eight (28) of those animals suggesting that, at least, forty-one or almost half of the
ninety (90) animals euthanized were in violation of the Settlement Agreement. See, Finkelstein
Decl., 19; Pease Decl., ¶6, Exhibit C.
The ninety (90) files of euthanized animals reveal that Defendant has consistently failed to
obtain and document the corroborating evidence necessary to euthanize an animal for alleged
aggressiveness. OCAC Policies and Procedures §400.13.A.4.b.i—v. See Finkelstein Decl., 19.
Therefore, Plaintiffs request that the Court schedule a hearing on a Petition for Preliminary and
Permanent Injunction to enforce the Settlement Agreement pursuant to the Court's equitable
powers under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §664.6.
D. In the Alternative, Plaintiffs Request that the Court Extend the
Date of the Settlement Agreement Allow the Parties to Engage in the Meet and
Confer Process Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement
Should the Court conclude that it would be more beneficial to extend the current
November 1, 2017 deadline and direct the parties to conduct a substantive Meet & Confer process
in accordance with 14 of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court
extend the enforcement period of the Settlement Agreement to January 12, 2018. Trial courts
have broad discretion to rule on motions made to permit amendments due to mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect: "[a] ruling on a motion for discretionary relief under
— 9 -
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETT EMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28

14. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §473 shall not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse."
Zamora v. Claybom Contracting Group, Inc., 28 Cal. 4th 249, 257 (2002) (citing State Farm Fire
& Casualty Co. v. Pietak, 90 Cal. App. 4th 600, 610 (2001)).
Plaintiffs' initial counsel of record, Howard D. Finkelstein, Esq., was forced to stop
practicing law after he began treatment for a serious medical issue in December 2014. See,
Finkelstein Decl., ¶10. On July 20, 2017, Mr. Finkelstein underwent a major emergency heart
procedure, and he sought substitute counsel who would undertake Plaintiffs' case on a pro bono
basis. See, Finkelstein Decl., ¶10. On April 13, 2017, Peter Gregorovic, Esq. became counsel of
record for Plaintiffs. See, Finkelstein Decl., ¶10. On July 31, 2017, Bryan W. Pease, Esq.,
Plaintiffs' current counsel of record, substituted into Plaintiffs' case at attorneys Finkelstein and
Gregorovic's request because Mr. Pease had substantial experience in handling animal welfare
litigation. See, Pease Decl., V. Attorneys Gregorovic and Finkelstein apprised Mr. Pease of the
case's background so that he could supervise the litigation team through the completion of the
Monitoring Program. See, Pease Decl.,
On August 4, 2017, Mr. Pease requested the production of ninety (90) files from
Defendant, and received these files between September 7, 2017 and September 25, 2017. See,
Pease Decl., ¶4. By October 7, 2017, the litigation team had completed review of those files and
determined that Defendant was not complying with the terms of the Settlement Agreement—
especially the revised OCAC Policies and Procedures §400.13—and Mr. Pease issued the required
Notice of Noncompliance to Defendants pursuant to ¶4 of the Settlement Agreement. See, Pease
Decl., ¶3-4. Plaintiffs proposed a stipulation to extend this Court's jurisdiction beyond November
1, 2017 to allow for the Meet and Confer process set forth in ¶5(b) of the Settlement Agreement
but Defendant rejected this proposal without explanation. See, Pease Decl., ¶5. Defendant
— 10 —
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT
1
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

15. 1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
responded to the Notice of Noncompliance on October 20, 2017, tacitly admitting that at least
forty-one (41) of the animals were wrongfully euthanized and assured Plaintiffs that "although the
end of the Settlement Agreement enforcement period is fast approaching, it is our intention to
continue working with you past November 1, 2017 in order to improve OCAC' s process." See,
Pease Decl., ¶6. Nevertheless, Defendant refused to stipulate to extend the Settlement
Agreement's enforcement period which compelled Plaintiffs to file the instant motion. See, Pease
Decl.. ¶6.
V. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs have established a continued pattern and practice of Defendant's failure to
comply with the Settlement Agreement, particularly, Policies and Procedures §§400.13 and 400.27
based on the following, as more extensively discussed above:
• In reviewing ninety (90) files, Plaintiffs found that sixty-eight (68) files contained
insufficient documentation to establish an independent basis to support a determination
that the animal is aggressive.
• Dr. Lamere's statistical analysis contained in her report establishes that OCAC engaged in
a widespread pattern of conduct that failed to comply with the Settlement Agreement and
with OCAC Policies and Procedures.
• Defendant has essentially agreed that at least forty-one (41) of the ninety (90) animals in
the files that Plaintiffs requested were euthanized in violation of the independent
corroboration requirement of the Settlement Agreement.
— 11 —
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORMES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT

16. Plaintiffs respectfully request that, alternatively, the Court extend the November 1, 2017
date to January 12, 2018, to allow the parties to proceed with a good-faith Meet & Confer process
in an effort to establish verifiable a means to assure future compliance with the Hayden Act.
Dated: October 31, 2017.
Bryan W. Pease
Attorney for Plaintiffs Sharon Logan and
PAW Protectors, Inc.
— 12 —
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORTI IES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT