California

Summary: This is a pleading of a dangerous dog.

Summary: This is a local ordinance.

Summary: The court denied the defendants’ motion to quash five business records subpoenas issued to various county agencies, finding the requested documents directly relevant to the plaintiff’s allegations that the defendants violated California animal cruelty laws. The court reaffirmed that the plaintiff, as a non-profit humane society, has standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief under Corporations Code sections 10404 and 14501, and that the subpoenas were not overbroad because they were limited to records concerning animals owned or abused by the named defendants. Regarding the official information privilege under Evidence Code section 1040, the court found no absolute bar to disclosure and, after balancing the interests, determined that the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice outweighed any potential confidentiality interests of the non-party agencies, especially since none of the agencies moved to quash or assert any privilege. The court further ruled that the parties’ existing stipulated protective order adequately safeguards any confidential business information or trade secrets that might be produced. Consequently, the court ordered the motion to quash denied, stayed the order’s effective date for fifteen days, and declined to award sanctions, finding the parties’ positions substantially justified.

Summary: In this appeal arising from convictions for trespass and conspiracy related to animal rights protests at poultry farms, the defendant, Wayne Hansen Hsiung, co-founded Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) and participated in "open rescues" at Sunrise Farms and Reichardt Duck Farm, where he and others entered private property without permission to document animal conditions and remove animals they believed were suffering. The defendant asserted that the trial court erroneously deprived him of presenting a complete defense by excluding evidence and jury instructions on his good-faith mistake of law predicated on the necessity defense. The court held that while the necessity defense was legally unavailable as a justification because the actions were premeditated rather than responses to an imminent emergency, the defendant was constitutionally entitled to present his honest but mistaken belief that necessity justified his conduct to negate the specific intent required for trespass with intent to interfere with a business (Penal Code § 602(k)) and conspiracy. The appellate court found that the trial court’s limitation of the mistake-of-law instruction solely to Penal Code § 597e (providing a narrow justification for providing food or water to impounded animals) and its exclusion of expert legal opinions on necessity violated the defendant’s right to present a defense, as such evidence was relevant to whether he possessed the requisite criminal intent. Accordingly, the court reversed the convictions for conspiracy to commit trespass (count 1) and trespass with intent to interfere with a lawful business (count 4) and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the conviction for trespass by refusing to leave property (count 2).

Summary: This California law, effective in 2025, makes it unlawful to engage in the aquaculture of any species of octopus for the purpose of human consumption. It also prohibits possession and transportation of octopus that are products of aquaculture.

Summary: This document comprises Defendant Alexandre Family Farm's demurrer to Plaintiff Legal Impact for Chickens complaint. Plaintiff alleges two causes of action against the defendant Alexandre Family LLC and three individuals. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under Corporations Code section 10404 and declaratory and injunctive relief under section 145011. Plaintiff alleges that Alexandre violated California's animal anti-cruelty laws in Penal Code sections 597 et seq. as well as industry standards for treatment of farm animals. The Court concluded that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate the court's jurisdiction over the dispute. as well as standing of the plaintiff, and a cause of action for injunctive and declaratory relief under Corporations Code sections 10404and 1450 was established.

Summary: Appellant Candis Danielson was seriously injured by dogs owned by Donald Mehrtens on his property. The injuries were so severe that she lost the lower half of her right leg and sustained damage to her other leg and hand. After Danielson was injured, Mehrtens surrendered both dogs to Humboldt County, which resulted in them being declared vicious and euthanized. Mehrtens was also barred from owning dogs for three years. She filed this action for damages against numerous parties, including Mehrtens and the County of Humboldt (Humboldt County or County). The County demurred. This appeal concerns solely the cause of action against the County for its alleged failure to perform a mandatory duty. This court first noted the record demonstrated Mehrtens had at least five different incidents over more than ten years that involved either an attack by his dogs or a report to animal control (including reports on biting, failure to license, and failure to vaccinate). When Dainelson was attacked by Mehrtens dogs in 2021, she argued that the County was liable for her injuries because it failed to perform mandatory duties imposed by the Humboldt County Code like impoundment and euthanasia of dogs that are unvaccinated, unlicensed, and dangerous. The County contended that there is no mandatory duty under the county code, to which the lower court agreed.This court found that the Government Claims Act provides immunity to public entities and employees for legislative action or discretionary law enforcement activity as opposed to mandatory duties. Here, the county ordinance did not impose a mandatory duty for the officer to petition for a hearing after one of Mehrtens' dogs had bitten a neighbor months earlier. In addition, the officer did not have a mandatory duty to impound the dogs due for licensing and rabies vaccination concerns. Finally, the dangerous dog ordinances also did not mandate seizing or impounding the dogs. Within the compulsory rabies vaccination code, the county did not impose a mandatory duty to impound unvaccinated dogs that had bitten someone. The use of the term "shall" in section 547-8 only applied after officer exercised his or her discretion in conducting an investigation. Similarly, the use of the term "shall" in two instances of the chapter on rabies vaccination did not create a mandatory duty because the decision of whether to impound a dog at all was discretionary. While the court "sympathize[d] with her desire to be compensated for her injuries," the failure to identify a law that created "a mandatory duty which was breached by the County" does not exist here. The lower court was affirmed.

Summary: This is a case brought by purchasers of puppies from breeders advertising on Craigslist, against the breeders who were selling fatally sick puppies to these buyers. The buyers allege that the sellers misrepresented the puppies as healthy, when the dogs were actually too young to be separated from their mothers and many of these puppies ended up dying from illnesses such as parvovirus. The buyers brought suit for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for animal cruelty. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction to stop the sellers from advertising and selling dogs while trial was pending. This appeal followed, with the sellers arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show that they were the sellers of these sick puppies. However, the court of appeals affirmed. The court found that the evidence from the humane officer’s search of the seller’s home led to sufficient evidence that they were selling the sick puppies, including the seizure of 32 puppies and dogs living in unhealthy and cruel conditions. The puppies were being separated from their mothers too soon, and some were encrusted with feces. During the search, one of the sellers also told the officer that they would not stop selling puppies. Sellers attempted to raise several evidentiary objections to the evidence offered by the humane society officers, but all were rejected. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed and awarded costs to the buyers who brought the action.

Summary: This case was brought by plaintiff-appellants, several no-kill animal shelters, against defendant-appellee the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate against defendant seeking to compel the release of impounded dogs scheduled for euthanasia to plaintiffs. The court sustained defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend, and this appeal followed. Plaintiffs argue on appeal that the Hayden Act imposes a duty on defendant to release the dogs scheduled for euthanasia to plaintiffs. First, the court asked whether defendant had discretion to refuse to release, and then to euthanize, a dog deemed to have behavioral problems when release has been requested by a non-profit animal adoption or rescue organization? Second, the court asked if defendant had discretion to determine and impose requirements for organizations that claim to be animal rescue or adoption organizations to qualify as such, beyond simply ensuring that the organizations are non-profits under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code? The court examined the relevant code, which stated that “any stray dog that is impounded pursuant to this division shall, before the euthanasia of that animal, be released to a nonprofit” and agreed with plaintiffs’ argument that the use of the word shall indicates that the legislature intended to impose a duty on defendant to release these dogs upon request to qualified nonprofit animal rescue or adoption agencies. The court also concluded that the demurrer was improperly granted as defendant lacked discretion to withhold and euthanize a dog based upon its determination that the animal has a behavioral problem or is not adoptable or treatable. The court agreed, however, that defendant had discretion to determine whether and how a non-profit organization qualifies as an animal adoption or rescue organization. The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, vacated the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, and remanded to the trial court.

Summary: This is an action for veterinary malpractice brought by the owner of two horses, who alleges defendant veterinarian negligently performed pre-purchase examinations of the two horses. These pre-purchase examinations caused the plaintiff to purchase horses with physical problems that impeded their ability to be used as competition horses. The jury found that the veterinarian was negligent in performing the examinations for one of the horses, and the trial court awarded $46,000 in damages for plaintiff. On appeal, the court held that there was no evidence of an applicable standard of care, and reversed the judgment of the lower court.