The Law Offices of Thompson Gould Page began working on animal cases by defending the rights of dogs involved in bite incidents where the dogs were condemned to die. This remains a major focus of the our litigation efforts because governments throughout the country kill countless dogs every year. These cases also provide a platform to expand the fundamental rights of all animals.
To defend animals and advance these rights, our litigation strategies apply established property and constitutional principles to woefully archaic companion animal laws. We are leading the fight to change the existing legal status of animals as mere property through these precedent setting challenges.
Sorted generally by topic, below are summaries as well as updates of past and pending matters, including links to pleadings, memoranda, rulings and other background information supporting our litigation efforts.
Selected Topics
- Provocation
- Unlawful Confiscation and Transfer of Dog by Government
- Joint Custody
- Replevin
- Pet Trusts
- Saving Lives by Challenging Infirm Animal Laws
Provocation
What constitutes provocation for an animal? By nature and/or training, most dogs will protect their territory. It is wholly unfair to punish and even kill them for their instincts.
The case of the census taker:
In 2016, a census taker entered a gated and fenced yard to conduct a pre-2020 Census survey. The homeowner was away, and his two dogs were outside in the yard. Once aroused by the intrusion, they came running from the backyard and bit the census taker.
The dogs were declared dangerous, sentenced to die and have been held in the city pound for three years, while a protracted legal appeal ensues to save them.
We were asked about our interest in the issues of trespass and provocation as defenses against dangerous dog declarations and the all-too-common deaths of these dogs for reacting quite naturally. We combined our own experiences with caselaw throughout the country to prepare an amicus curiae brief providing the California appellate court with perspectives on these evolving defense theories in dangerous dog proceedings.
Link to Filing:
Unlawful Confiscation and Transfer of Dog by Government
Our team filed an action in federal court on behalf of a client who luckily had his beloved dog returned (Complaint filed in Federal Court). But that was not the plan of the police officers who encountered him one evening while his dog lay stoically beside him. He needed to be hospitalized, and after dropping him off at the hospital, the officers inconceivably gave his dog away to a friend of theirs.
Months went by frantically searching for his secreted dog, and finally we could go to court and got her back. The judge was not fooled by the police officers’ persistence of innocence. Read the judge’s decision here: State Court Decision of Replevin Action
While elated at being reunited with his cherished companion, our client was also deeply distraught this could happen tomorrow to any dog owner. He decided to try and stop this from ever occurring again, to hold the police officers accountable for their unconscionable conduct.
This is too often the only way to rein in the unbridled power of government, when they blatantly disregard the basic rights of others and think nothing of it. To them, stealing was simply not a crime, and it seared a wound in our dog owner, who well understands the sacred bond we share with animals.
Links to Filings:
2016: State Court Decision of Replevin Action
2021: Complaint filed in Federal Court
Joint Custody
What happens when two people adopt an animal as a companion and then later separate? The legal issues involved in determining the custody of the companion animal can evolve and expand animal law.
Links to filings for one client’s case:
2021: Plaintiff’s Post Prejudgment Remedy Hearing Memorandum (read for an overview of the case)
2021: Prejudgment Remedy Decision
Replevin
While companion animals are still viewed as property, an animal replevin action can be filed as a means to have your animal returned after it has been wrongfully taken. These types of lawsuits can be used as a vehicle to evolve the rights of animals.
We have successfully filed animal replevin actions on behalf of rescue organizations when an animal is not being properly cared for by the adopters, based on violation of the terms of the adoption agreement.
Links to filings for one client’s case:
2019: Plantiff’s Post Prejudgment Remedy Hearing Brief (read for an overview of the case)
2019: Prejudgment Remedy Decision
Pet Trusts
Pet trusts are another exciting avenue that can be utilized to evolve the rights of animals. In and of themselves, a pet trust invaluably provides a companion animal with legally enforceable arrangements to ensure its proper care. While familiar and experienced with pet trusts, the Center for Animal Litigation has not yet been involved in a dispute over a pet trust. However, we foresee that such litigation could provide the opportunity to evolve animal rights issues.
For more information on Pet Trusts, please refer to the following article written by Thom Page:
Pet Trusts: The Compassionate and Responsible Way to Provide for Your Animals
Saving Lives by Challenging Infirm Animal Laws
The US Supreme Court stated that “Individual freedom finds tangible expression in property rights.” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 61 (1993). This is the premise for many of our legal challenges concerning animals. Dogs are considered personal property under the law. In 2015, we brought our first challenge to Connecticut’s arcane law allowing an animal control officer (ACO) to hold and kill allegedly biting dogs simply because the ACO believed it was “necessary”. The plaintiffs owned dogs held on disposal orders in municipal pounds. We settled with one town and the dog was released, while the other dogs remained incarcerated for four years. Our primary challenges to the disposal order statute were as follows: 1. A law allowing an ACO’s unfettered discretion to decide killing a dog was necessary, without any rules, standards, regulations or policies to interpret the law, is arbitrary and unconstitutionally vague. It cannot therefore withstand constitutional muster. The statute did not inform owners what behavior is prohibited and did not provide a basis for determining whether a violation had occurred and to what extent any enforcement action should be taken. This violated plaintiffs’ rights to due process. 2. Seizing and holding a dog for up to a year without providing a hearing to contest the seizure or disposal order violates the owner’s Constitutional 14th Amendment right to due process. After 4 years of opposition by the municipal defendants, the court ordered evaluations of all the dogs. They were determined releasable, and their lives were saved. The law was not changed by judicial fiat, but the CT legislature attempted twice to revise it. While the revisions were not approved, towns have markedly reduced the issuance of disposal orders in response to our continued appeals of them. The law still allows for the unjustified killing of dogs without affording their owners the fundamental rights otherwise secured to them by the Constitution. We will thus bring a subsequent challenge to the constitutionality of this law in our continuing efforts to change how the law treats these animals.