LACountyPressRelease_000

8/13/2019 LACountyPressRelease_000

1/7

PPP...OOO... BBBoooxxx777444999222666 SSSaaannnCCCllleeemmmeeennnttteee,,, CCCAAA999222666777333 (((999444999))) 222777666 ---666999444222 wwwwwwwww...nnnoookkkiii lll lllaaadddvvvooocccaaacccyyyccceeennnttteeerrr ...ooorrrggg

For Immediate Release CONTACT: Nathan J. WinogradDecember 20, 2007 (949) 276-6942

ANIMAL LOVERS SUE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT

TO END THE UNLAWFUL AND ABUSIVE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS

Los Angeles, CAThe national No Kill Advocacy Center, Cathy Nguyen, a volunteer animal

rescuer, and Rebecca Arvizu, a Los Angeles County taxpayer and animal rescuer, have jointly

filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County, its Department of Animal Care and Control, and the

Departments Director, Marcia Mayeda. The lawsuit alleges unlawful and abusive treatment of

animals at all six Los Angeles County animal shelters.

Among the allegations in the 29-page complaint filed today in Superior Court, the County

Department of Animal Care and Control routinely:

Kills healthy and treatable animals before their state mandated holding period expires; Misclassifies animals as ill or injured in order to kill them before their holding period

expires even though the animals are not irremediably suffering as required by state law;

Kills lost animals without making reasonable attempts to find the animals owners; Fails to provide adequate veterinary care to impounded animals, resulting in animal

deaths;

Fails to provide adequate nutrition, water, shelter and exercise to impounded animals andto treat the animals humanely and kindly;

Refuses to release animals to rescue groups that are willing to care for the animals untiladoptive homes can be found and, instead, kills the animals.

In addition, the County Department of Animal Care and Control unlawfully retaliates against

animal rescuers and volunteers who publicize its unlawful treatment of animals.

The lawsuit asks a Superior Court Judge to order Los Angeles County, its Department of Animal

Care and Control, and Department Director Mayeda to comply with state laws that protect

animals from arbitrary and inhumane treatment. The lawsuit is being handled by the Los Angeles

law firm of Eisenberg, Raizman, Thurston, and Wong, LLP.

The Los Angeles County animal shelter system is supposed to provide a reasonable safety net of

care for lost and abandoned animals, said Nathan J. Winograd, Director of the No Kill Advocacy

Center. Instead, the system betrays the trust of the citizens of Los Angeles County by failing totreat the animals humanely and kindly.

Los Angeles County and its Department of Animal Control fought the existing animal protection

laws that safeguard shelter animals when those laws were pending in the legislature. They fought

the laws after they became effective through a regulatory challenge. Now, it appears they have

decided they are just going to ignore those laws, stated Winograd. But Los Angeles County

shelters are supposed to enforce laws related to animal welfare, not violate the laws themselves

and then retaliate against rescue groups who want to save these animals and make their demands


2/7


public. This is the worst form of hypocrisy and cannot be toleratedespecially since animals are

not only suffering, they are needlessly being killed because of it.

I have tried to work with the Department and Director Mayeda regarding the conditions at LosAngeles County shelters for many months to no avail, said plaintiff Cathy Nguyen, who works

with rescue groups trying to save animals that Los Angeles County shelters are putting to

death. I cannot sit quietly and do nothing about this and have no choice at this point but to

demand that they follow the law.

As a taxpayer, I dont want my taxes to pay for the killing of animals when there are rescue

groups willing to save them at their own expense, said Los Angeles county taxpayer and plaintiff

Rebecca Arvizu. These shelters also do not reflect my values and those of my fellow citizens

who love animals. Since they are supposed to be working for us, I want them caring for animals

humanely. Thats the law and those are the values a majority of us hold dear.

The No Kill Advocacy Center is a national non-profit organization trying to end the systematickilling of animals in U.S. shelters. It has drafted model legislation, works with municipal and

private shelters nationwide, and helps animal lovers throughout the United States reform their

local shelters.

The lawsuit is based on violations of California laws, especially the 1998 Animal Shelter Law.

The law sought to reform California shelters which were unnecessarily killing in the face of cost-

effective lifesaving alternatives. It follows a successful lawsuit in Kern County where a Superior

Court judge held the Kern County animal control shelter in violation of law and ordered that

shelter to cease its legal violations.

For a media kit, which includes a copy of the 4-page Demand Letter the plaintiffs sent to Ms.

Mayeda before filing their lawsuit, the 3-page letter protesting the Departments retaliation, the29-page Complaint, and high resolution images and video of filthy conditions and animal

suffering in Los Angeles Countys shelter system, go to nokilladvocacycenter.organd click on

Whats New.

To contact attorneys Sheldon Eisenberg, Orly Degani, or Melissa Bonfiglio, of Eisenberg,

Raizman Thurston, and Wong, LLP: (310) 445-4400.


3/7


Life and Death at Los Angeles County Animal Shelters

The tragic story of Zephyr, a ten-month-old puppy

(Left) Zephyr arrives at the Carson shelter run by the

Los Angeles County Department of Animal Control.

(Above) Zephyr begins to show signs of illness. Thefacility is cold, the dogs are kept in filthy kennels, and

prompt and necessary veterinary care is not provided in violation of state laws.

(Right). Zephyr lies dead in her barren and

filthy kennel.

Zephyr was a ten-month old puppy. She

died at the Los Angeles County Department

of Animal Care and Control on November

30, 2007. She is not the first.

From Plaintiff Cathy Nguyen, December 1, 2007:

I received a distressed phone call regarding the dog yesterday evening. I drove up to Carson this morning

with the hope that I can get her out and bring her to our vet for emergency care. I found her dead on the

outside part of the kennel. No blanket, no heat. I have attached the photo so you can see what being in the

LA County shelter (Carson) does to a healthy, young animal. She was just 10 months old.

For high resolution images of Zephyr, go to www.nokilladvocacycenter.organd click on Whats New.


4/7


This page (left to right): Rabbit tries to drink water from an

empty container; Despite claming it has no choice but to killcats because of lack of space, the County maintains a large

number of empty cages; Dog lives in filthy kennel; Diarreah

is common due to poor care and illness, but remainsuncleaned throughout the day. (Los Angeles County Carson

shelter, 12/17/2007.)


5/7


This page (left to right): Days of fecal build up in cages; The filthy cage of a sick mother

dog with puppies; Dirty cat cage; Lethargic puppy in cage with sick mother. (Los Angeles

County Carson shelter, 12/17/2007.)


6/7


Background on the 1998 Animal Shelter Law (Hayden)

State Senator Tom Hayden, from the greater Los Angeles area, wanted to reform animal control sheltersaround the state, particularly those shelters in his home district of Los Angeles. His legislation had thepotential to become the most significant piece of companion animal protection legislation in years. As oneof its supporters noted:

With some notable exceptions, shelters have failed to provide hours the working public can visitthe shelters for adoptions or redemptions of their companion animals. They have failed toprovide adequate lost/found services. They have failed to keep records adequate to find petswithin the system. They have failed to use freely offered microchip scanning services. They havefailed to provide adequate veterinary health care for many animals. They have resisted working

with the rescue/adoption community. They have failed to raise funds aggressively to promotelifesaving methods to spare the lives of placeable companion animals. They have used tax dollarsto kill animals they didnt have to accept in the first place ("owner-relinquished" pets) and to killanimals whose companion humans never even had a chance to locate them.

Our shelters have a very bad track record when it comes to adoption. In California in 1997 witha statewide human population of close to 33 million, only 142,385 cats and dogs were adoptedfrom our shelters. The vast majority576,097were killed.

The legislation required, among other things, that animal control shelters in California give animals torescue groups and No Kill shelters instead of killing them; provided incentives for shelters to remain openat least some evening or weekend hours so that working people and families with children in school couldget to the shelters to reclaim lost pets or adopt new ones; set a statewide preference for adoption rather

than killing; and sought to end the practice where animals surrendered by their owners, includinghealthy and highly adoptable kittens and puppies, were killed within minutes of arriving. It also modestlyincreased the time shelters were required to hold strayanimals before killing them so that lost animalshad an opportunity to be reunited with their families.

Shelters mired in killing, afraid of public scrutiny, and unwilling to work with rescue groups predictablyopposed the measure. In addition to their desire to avoid being held accountable, their main objectionwas that the law made it illegal to kill an animal if a rescue group or No Kill shelter was willing toguarantee that animal a home through its own adoption program. This threatened to open up shelterkilling and other atrocities to public scrutiny. As frequent visitors to the shelters, rescuers saw systemicproblems and inhumane treatment of animals, but their access to animals was tenuous and many timeshinged on not publicly disclosing concerns. Under the 1998 Animal Shelter Law, their right to take theseanimals is no longer legally premised on silence as to shelter practices and violations of the law.

Despite the opposition of shelters and their allies, it made no sense to state legislators that taxpayerswere spending money on killing animals when No Kill shelters and other private rescue agencies werewilling to spend their own money to save them. Legislators also found that public shelters did not reflectthe humane values of their constituents. Not surprisingly, the proposed bill passed the legislature withoverwhelmingly bipartisan supportninety-six to twelveand the states Republican governor signed themeasure into law.

The reaction was strong and swift. The County of Los Angeles fought the measure through a regulatorychallenge, replete with bloated figures and misleading claims. The County claimed the law would be too


7/7


expensive to implement, a claim debunked by the California Department of Finance. It claimed that thelonger holding periods, which would give people a chance to find their lost pets or for the pets to beadopted into new homes, would lead to the increased killing of other animals. That argument was also a

red herring: the law did increase the holding period from a paltry seventy-two hours from the time ofimpound to four days if the shelter was open one evening a week or one weekend day. As acommentator pointed out:

When California's holding period was 72 hours, there was only one state with a shorter holdingperiodHawaii, with a 48-hour holding period. Now that California has increased the holdingperiod, it has joined the bottomsix states in the country in terms of holding period. By nationalstandards, Californias current holding period is far from generous.

Unfortunately, while full and vigorous implementation of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law could haveprovided the basis for greater lifesaving success, some shelters refuse to implement either the letter orspirit of the new law. As a result, the hoped-for renaissance of lifesaving has had mixed results, while citygovernments and shelters continued killing in direct violation of the law.

Kern Countys municipal animal control shelter, an agency tasked with enforcing animal-related laws, forexample, chose to ignore and violate the law. There, killing illegally continued until a local activist filed alawsuit to stop it in 2004, six years after passage of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law. Full implementationcontinues to prove elusive. Unfortunately, Kern County does not appear to be an isolated incident.Sacramento County animal control was also the target of a lawsuit for illegally killing animals before theircaretakers could find them, for not making them available for adoption, and for failing to keep records onthousands of others. The Los Angeles County Department of Animal Control joins the list of agenciestasked with enforcing animal laws, who instead routinely violate those laws.

Documents

LACountyPressRelease_000