United States

Summary: The Plaintiffs allege that their cat, named Pizza, was unlawfully euthanized at Yuba County Animal Care Services shelter in Olivehurst, California on or about February 9, 2018. Pizza went missing on or about February 9, 2018 and Plaintiffs found out later that same day that a neighbor had found the cat and brought it to the Yuba County animal shelter. The Plaintiffs attempted to contact the shelter, but it had already closed for the evening. The next morning around 9:30 a.m., the Plaintiffs arrived at the shelter and learned that Pizza had been euthanized as early as 5:00 p.m. the night before. Defendant Barnhill, the shelter’s supervising officer, informed the Plaintiff’s that Pizza had been injured, however, the neighbor who brought the cat to the shelter without knowing it was the Plaintiffs’ described Pizza as looking healthy. The Plaintiffs contend that Pizza’s euthanization falls within an ongoing pattern and practice of abuse and failure to follow state and federal law. Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on October 1, 2018. The Defendants removed the case to federal court. Plaintiff’s asserted four claims in their First Amended Complaint: (1) the failure to perform mandatory duties in violation of California Government Code section 815.6, (2) petition for a writ of mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, (3) violation of the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, (4) negligence under California common law. The Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and alleged that the Plaintiff’s did not plead facts sufficient to show that Barnhill engaged in unlawful conduct or to establish a substantive or procedural due process violation. The Court, however, granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint as to the section 1983 claim. The Court declined to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which were the Plaintiff’s first, second, and fourth claims since the Plaintiff’s had conceded that their federal claim by requesting to amend their complaint. As a result, the Court reviewed remaining claims to determine whether they may be included in any amended complaint or whether leave to amend would be futile. The Court determined that granting Plaintiff’s leave to file a second amended complaint would not be futile on all of their claims except for the petition for writ of mandate claim. California’s Civil Procedure Code section 1085 does not apply to federal courts and, therefore, the Plaintiff’s leave to amend this claim would be futile. Ultimately, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s third cause of action for violations of their Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights be dismissed with leave to amend, the Plaintiff’s state law claims in their first, second, and fourth causes of action be dismissed with leave to amend to the extent consistent with the order, and denied the Defendant's motions to strike Plaintiffs' punitive damages claim. Plaintiffs were required to file a second amended complaint within 21 days of the date the order was filed if they wished to amend their complaint.

Summary: Defendant was convicted of aggravated cruelty to animals. The Defendant appealed the judgment. Defendant and his nephew had purchased a puppy and continually used negative reinforcement, such as paddling or popping the dog on the rear end with an open hand, for unwanted behavior. On one occasion, when the dog was approximately 15 months old, the Defendant’s nephew found that the dog had defecated in the apartment. The nephew attempted to paddle the dog and the dog bit the nephew’s thumb as a result. When the Defendant had returned home, the nephew explained to him what had happened. The Defendant proceeded to remove the dog from his crate, put the dog’s face by the nephew’s injured thumb, and told him he was a bad dog. The dog then bit off a portion of the Defendant’s thumb. The Defendant attempted to herd the dog onto the back porch, but the dog became aggressive and continued to bite him. As a result, the Defendant repeatedly kicked the dog and used a metal hammer to beat the dog into submission. The dog later died due to his injuries. The Defendant argued that he had a justifiable purpose for causing the dog serious physical injury. The Defendant testified that he was in shock from the injury to his thumb and that he was trying to protect himself and his nephew. However, other evidence contradicted the Defendant's testimony. The dog was in a crate when the Defendant got home, and the Defendant could have left him there rather than take the dog out to discipline him. The Defendant was at least partially at fault for creating the situation that led him to react in such a violent manner. The Court reviewed several of the Defendant’s contentions and found them all to be without merit. The judgment was ultimately affirmed.

Summary: Mr. Shenai examines animal rights in the context of federal animal testing. After discussing current federal research policy and the positions held by animal rights advocates, he proposes a new statute to accommodate all interests in society as well as the rights of the animals being considered for testing.

Summary: The question of 'Rights allocation" typically hinges on society's distinction between legal and moral entitlement. Although many rights find support in both categories, not all rights grounded in societal morality are likewise accorded legal status. The animal rights movement, particularly in the last three decades, has advanced the recognition of nonhuman animals' moral entitlements, but corresponding legal rights have been slow to follow. This Comment explores this gap in nonhuman animals' rights allocation with an eye toward establishing a basis for a private right of intentional tort action. Through appeal to predominant tort jurisprudential theories, in conjunction with an examination of our scientifically and experientially grounded understanding of nonhuman animals, the Comment concludes that there is room in our current legal system for direct recognition of, and compensation for, intentional injurious behavior aimed at nonhuman animals

Summary: In 1997, the International Whaling Commission approved a quota for the Makah Indian Tribe to hunt four gray whales per year, culminating years of legal wrangling and political maneuvering by all of the concerned parties. Mr. Eichstaedt examines the history of the Makah whaling rights from the Tribe’s treaty with the United States in 1855 to the present-day battles with Congress and the IWC. This unfolding story pits a species of whale once on the brink of extinction, against Native Americans reasserting a centuries-old custom.

Summary: Ms. Perry outlines the actions taken on animal issues during the first session of the 105th Congress and discusses the weak consideration and lack of progress made in much of the legislative agenda in is this area. She also provides a current legislative update for each bill involved.

Summary: Ms. Stewart reviews the history of the tuna-dolphin controversy in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. She explores international agreements and U.S. law that mandate dolphin-safe tuna fishing practices. Finally, Ms. Stewart reviews the steps taken by the United States, including embargoes against other countries’ tuna, to force tuna-fishing nations to use dolphin-safe practices.

Summary: Mr. Eck and Mr. Bovett examine the inequities and inconsistencies in Oregon dog control laws and due process concerns arising from them. The authors outline constitutional requirements that need to be enforced to ensure protection against unreasonable government actions in cases involving these laws.

Summary: Mr. Wise analyzes experiential recognition of the bond that exists between human companions and companion animals in the context of possible recovery of tort damages for the wrongful death of a companion animal. He demonstrates that companion animals are often seen by their human companions as members of the family (holding much the same status as children). He discusses historical aspects of the common law as they relate to current tort law in such cases and examines the tension that exists between principle and policy.

Summary: In this article, the author postulates that there is more than a mere coincidence between various forms of family violence. Furthermore, that acts of cruelty towards family pets are a form of family violence that has been largely unrecognized by the legal community. Admitting that much research still needs to be done to establish that there is a link between abuse towards people and abuse towards animals, the author invites the reader to consider this multi-victim approach to family violence and offers the strengthening of animal cruelty laws as a solution to this grave societal problem.