|
CA - San Mateo - Title 6 - ANIMALS |
These are the ordinances in San Mateo, California that deal with animals. The laws regulate animal control, exotic animals, spaying, neutering, and breeding, kennels, catteries, and animal fanciers permits.
|
|
CA - Santa Cruz County - Santa Cruz County Code. Title 6. Animals. |
This comprises Santa Cruz County's animal-related ordinances. Santa Cruz County has a mandatory sterilization ordinance, which states that a dog or cat over the age of 6 months must be spayed or neutered unless such person holds an unaltered animal certification for the animal (excepting law enforcement dogs, service dogs, dogs or cats with health problems that prevent sterilization, herding dogs, or dogs or cats boarded in a business for training or resale). The code also has a section on feral cats, defined as felines that are wild by nature or no longer domesticated. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally provide food, water, or other forms of sustenance to a feral cat colony unless that person has registered with the county, and complies with the requirements (e.g., regularly trapping the cats for sterilization, testing trapped cats for feline leukemia, "ear tipping" for identification, rabies vaccination, and regularly feeding the colony even on holidays and weekends). Other provisions of note include a prohibition on "noisy animals" (one that habitually howls, yells, barks or makes other noise that unreasonably disturbs); a prohibition on the keeping of any "wild species" as defined by Section 2118 of the Cal. Fish & Game Code; and a leash/tether/grasp requirement when a dog is off its owner's premises.
|
|
CA - Swap Meets - Chapter 10. Sale of Animals at Swap Meets. |
This chapter (effective January 1, 2016) covers the sale of animals at swap meets in the state. A swap meet operator may allow a vendor to sell animals at a swap meet so long as the local jurisdiction has adopted standards for the care and treatment of the animals. The care and treatment of the animals must include that time that the animals are at the swap meet and during the transportation to and from the swap meet. The swap meet vendors must maintain, among other things, sanitary facilities for the animals, provide proper heating and ventilation in the facilities, provide adequate nutrition and humane care and treatment, and provide adequate space for all kept in the facilities. A swap meet vendor who offers for sale at a swap meet in a jurisdiction that has not authorized the sale is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine up to $100. If a swap meet vendor is found guilty of this infraction for a subsequent time, he or she will be fined up to $500 per violation. Some exceptions include: events held by 4-H Clubs, Junior Farmers Clubs, Future Farmer Clubs, the California Exposition and State Fair, the sale of cattle on consignment at any public cattle sales market, and a public animal control agency or shelter. |
|
CA - West Hollywood - Chapter 9.48 Animal Control Regulations. |
This comprises the City of West Hollywood, California's animal control ordinances. The animal control ordinances of Los Angeles County have been adopted by reference, prohibiting animal nuisances as well as the keeping of dangerous animals. The code also defines and outlines procedures for feral cats. Uniquely, West Hollywood has a ban on onychectomy (“declawing") of domestic cats unless done as a medically necessary procedure, as well as a ban on the sale of fur (with some exceptions). Further, subject to some exemptions, the city prohibits the retail sale of cats and dogs.
|
|
Cavallini v. Pet City and Supply |
Appellant, Pet City and Supplies, Inc. appealed from the judgment in the amount of $1,638.52 entered in favor of Appellee, Christopher A. Cavallini following a bench trial. The trial court determined that Cavallini was entitled to damages due to Pet City's violations of the Dog Purchaser Protection provisions of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). Cavallini purchased a Yorkshire terrier puppy from Pet City that was represented as a pure bred. After several attempts, Pet City failed to supply Cavallini with the requisite registration papers. On appeal, Pet City contended that the trial court erred as a matter of law by determining a private action can be brought under the Dog provisions of the UTPCPL, and erred as a matter of law by imposing a civil penalty against Pet City under the UPTCPL. In finding that the statute does provide a private cause of action, the court looked to the purpose of the statute rather than the plain language. However, the court found the inclusion of a civil penalty in the part that allows a private action was inconsistent with the statute.
|
|
Chalmers v. Diwell |
Defendant was an exporter of pet birds. He kept birds at a premises in the course of his business. Usually the birds remained on the premises for less than 48 hours before continuing their journey to their purchasers but on occasion birds had remained on the premises for up to 12 days. A magistrates' court acquitted him of keeping a pet shop without a licence (contrary to Pet Animals Act 1951, s.1). Prosecutor appealed. Result: appeal allowed. Held: even though the premises was being used as no more than a holding center, the defendant was carrying on from that premises a business of selling pets and the premises therefore required a pet shop license.
|
|
Cisneros v. Petland, Inc. |
Plaintiff Cisneros purchased a Shih Tzu puppy named "Giant" from Petland Kennesaw, a Kennesaw, Georgia franchise of Petland, Inc. She received a certificate of "veterinary inspection" and a limited health guarantee at the time of purchase. Several days later, problems arose with the puppy and she brought the dog back to the Petland affiliated veterinarian who prescribed antibiotics without making a diagnosis. Shortly thereafter, an emergency pet visit revealed the dog suffered from parvovirus. Cisneros called Petland who told her to take the dog back to the Petland vet if she wanted a refund. She did so and the dog died several days later. Because the State of Georgia requires reporting of parvovirus, Cisneros received a report after the dog died, but she learned the dog's organs had been removed (an uncommon post mortem practice). As a result, plaintiff alleged that actions were the intended result of a nationwide conspiracy involving Petland and its affiliates to sell unhealthy puppies from "puppy mills" where health conditions are rubber stamped by a network of "preferred veterinarians" and buyers are deceived by sales documents that distract from the fraud. Plaintiff broadly asserted three claims: (1) a violation of the federal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); (2) a conspiracy to violate the federal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); and (3) with respect to a Georgia subclass of persons who purchased a cat or dog from a Petland franchise in Georgia from July 2013 to the present, a violation of Georgia's state RICO statute, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4. The district court dismissed Cisneros's federal causes of action for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state-law claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). After applying the six-fold test for a private plaintiff suing under the civil provisions of RICO, this Court found chiefly that Cisneros has alleged no facts that plausibly support the inference that the defendants were collectively trying to make money in pet sales by fraud, which is a common purpose sufficient to find a RICO enterprise. Cisneros was required to allege not just that Petland Kennesaw had a fraudulent purpose, but that it was a common purpose, formed in collaboration with Petland, PAWSitive, and the preferred veterinarians. In the end, Cisneros has alleged only that Petland operates a franchise business like any other franchisor. Even assuming that Cisneros has adequately pled fraud on the part of Petland Kennesaw, she has not alleged that its predicate acts constituted a pattern of racketeering activity. The action was affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. |
|
CO - Pet Shop - Article 80. Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act |
This Colorado Act regulates pet animal facilities (i.e., shelters, large kennels, and breeders). The Act covers licensing of the facilities and those activities deemed unlawful, such as selling a kitten or puppy under the age of 8 weeks and refusing a lawful inspection. |
|
Commercial Dog Breeders and Puppy Mills |
|
|
Connor v. Bogrett |
This Wyoming case concerns the application of the sales provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in Wyoming (ss 34-21-201 through 34-21-299.5, W.S.1977) to a sale of a registered Black Labrador retriever which was intended for competition in field trials. More specifically the question is whether the continued physical ability of this retriever, as a matter of law, was precluded from becoming part of the basis for the bargain of the parties. The court agreed with the district court in this instance that, as a matter of law, the expressions of the seller relative to the potential of this retriever were only expressions of opinion or commendation and not an express warranty.
|
