Federal
Bakay v. Yarnes
431 F.Supp.2d 1103
US District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma, 2006
FACTS: After receiving complaints about the living conditions of more than 70 cats in the Bakay’s care, authorities obtained a search warrant and seized approximately 68 cats. Mr. Bakay asked authorities if they intended to euthanize the cats and was assured that no harm would come to them as along as Bakay complied with the notice authorities gave him, which indicated that he had 15 days to petition in court for the cats’ return. However, after being examined by a veterinarian, 42 of the cats were ordered to be euthanized. Later, authorities served a search warrant on the Bakays’ veterinarian and seized 2 additional cats belonging to the Bakays, one of which was later euthanized. The remaining 27 cats were returned to the Bakays. As a result of the seizure and destruction of the cats, the Bakays alleged violations of the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments, simple and gross negligence, respondeat superior, conversion and trespass to chattels, breach of bailment contract, outrage, statutory waste, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortuous interference with business expectancy.
ISSUES: Whether Veterinarian Schramm and Clallam County Humane Society were negligent in destroying the cats in question; whether the Bakays’ civil rights, including procedural due process, substantive due process, 4th, 5th, 14th amendment, and state constitutional rights have been violated; whether the Bakays have a legally cognizable claim for trespass to chattels or conversion; whether a bailment contract was formed and breached; whether the Bakays have a legally cognizable claim for the tort of outrage, statutory waste, or tortuous interference with a business expectancy.
HOLDINGS:
1) Euthanasia is allowed at any time for animals seized by the government where they are deemed to be severely injured, diseased, or suffering.
2) The Washington statute under which the animals were seized states that law enforcement officers and licensed veterinarians shall be immune from civil and criminal liability for actions taken under RCW 16.52.210 if reasonable prudence is exercised in carrying out the provisions.
3) There is no credible evidence that defendants were negligent in their examinations, and no credible evidence that the cats in question were not severely injured, diseased, or suffering.
4) The Bakays’ due process rights were not violated; to hold that notice and a hearing are required before an animal that is severely suffering can be euthanized is to rewrite the law.
5) The rest of the Bakays’ claims alleging violations of their rights under the federal and state constitutions are ambiguous and lack merit.
6) No cause of action for trespass to chattels or conversion exists if a defendant has legal authority to seize or take dominion over a plaintiff’s property. No credible evidence exists to suggest that defendants acted negligently in carrying out their duties, or exceeded their authority in this case and therefore, the Bakays have no legally cognizable action for trespass to chattels or conversion.
7) Any notice given by the officers that the Bakays could petition the court for the return of the cats within 15 days does not constitute a promise that the cats would be returned, just notice that they could seek a potential remedy through the court system.
8) The same statute that gave the Bakays the right to petition the court within 15 days also give the state the right to euthanize animals that are suffering at any time. Consequently, a bailment contract was not created when the cats were seized, and not violated when the cats were euthanized.
9) The Bakays claim of outrage must fail because they have failed to show that the actions taken by defendants were outrageous in any way, that they have suffered severe emotional distress as a result, or that they were present when the cats were euthanized.
10) There is no evidence whatsoever to support the Bakays’ statutory waste claim.
11) The Bakays’ claim of breach of fiduciary duty must fail because no Washington court has recognized the existence of a constructive trust imposed on law enforcement officers after lawfully seizing evidence pursuant to a warrant.
12) No credible evidence exists in the record to suggest that defendants interfered with the Bakays’ business for an improper purpose or used improper means.
New York
Feger v. Warwick Animal Shelter
814 N.Y.S.2d 700
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 2006
FACTS: Feger commenced this action against the Warwick Animal Shelter and its employee to recover possession of her cat and for emotional damages. Feger alleged that a white Persian cat called “Lucy” that was surrendered to the shelter by an unidentified person and adopted by an unidentified family, was actually her champion pure-bred Persian cat “Kisses” that was stolen from her home, and that the shelter knew the cat to be stolen at the time of adoption. The Supreme Court granted the shelter’s motion to dismiss and denied Feger’s motion for summary judgment. Feger appealed.
ISSUES: Whether the Warwick Animal Shelter and its employee are statutorily immune from civil liability; whether Feger was entitled to an award of emotional damages for the loss of her cat; whether summary judgment was precluded by fact issues.
HOLDINGS:
1) To the extent that Feger could prove that the animal shelter and its employee had knowingly accepted a champion cat stolen from her home and placed it for adoption with an unidentified family, the shelter and its employee would not be statutorily immune from civil liability.
2) Feger’s cat is personal property and its loss cannot support an award of emotional distress damages.
3) Whether “Lucy” is “Kisses” is a question of fact and therefore, summary judgment is precluded.