The lawsuit filed by NAIA Trust and several Plaintiffs, 2009, was kicked out on what appears to be summary judgment grounds where the order stated that at least one Plaintiff was not located in an area where she could have applied for a hobby breeder license– we do not have the written order here, it was viewed online briefly.
Their appeal is moving forward this week. However we also found the update on HSUS’ site which categorically implicated the case as something that it was not (which is typical HSUS misleading the public) and it did not mention the appeal at all.
It is unclear as to what grounds the appeal would be based but if the appeal is lost, it would not be good for dog breeders since the CDOC case in Los Angeles based allegedly upon constitutional concerns also flew by the wayside. The CDOC case was not really based on strong con law issues [given the political nature of Los Angeles] but the problem is that appealing the case created more of an issue since it solidifies potential unwanted legal ramifications. Although not unexpected, being kicked out of state court is one thing. Appealing it is another, and is far more dangerous. Unpublished decisions are not normally used in briefing except for very few specific applications, and generally carry very little weight.
Yet Animal rights always tries to cite unpublished cases in any effort to craft legislation and to persuade people that such-and-such occurred, despite cases not being published. There is a very big difference in creating legislation vs setting it aside in court. The former is easy as 1-2-3 and the latter is more difficult than pulling teeth. That being said, it is obvious that a radically huge outpouring against BAD legislation is the best tactic.
There are several key cases in California re animals as property, which include the Fuller case (San Francisco 9th Circuit Ct Appeals) which involved a blue pitbull being killed [case took a minimum of 7 years to do] and the Hells Angel case out of Santa Clara County, which involved the SWAT team illegally killing the owner’s Rottie(s) and destroying the owner’s property. There are other cases but for California cases and animals as property, these cases are etched in stone.
Breeder laws are almost always based on “health and safety” allegations which means the statute is considered at a very low standard of law known as the rational basis. In order to heighten the standard for owners, it is sometimes the strategy to use constitutional law which would not be based on health and welfare [which uses the rational basis level of scrutiny] but on fourth amendment or other higher concerns. Unfortunately this is not easy to do unless you can readily see that the case is a defined case law precedent. When that is not available then politics may enter into the picture. Petdefense now has an excellent summa cum laude graduate who is a law student, and excellent researcher. Also two adept paralegals and two trial attorneys. We will clearly be using the student’s skills to help pet owners and possibly even legislative challenges. In particular we are very concerned that former AB1122 (now SB917) is routinely PASSED as OK by the dummies in the legislature. HOW could anyone find that law as written to be legal is beyond us.