]MARLA TATJSCHER

sBN259630
655N. PalmCanyonDr., Ste'. 214 PalmSprings, CAtt2262 'felephone: (760) 534-314'.\ Facsimile:(760)4zl4-27 42 ,E-mai I : madaQD,atty mat.corn MICHELLE LEE sBN 271278 ,AnimalLegal DefenseFun,J 170E. CotatiAve. Cotati,CA 94931 'felepho ne: (7 07) 795 -2533 Facsimil e: (707) 795-7280 E-mail: mlee@aldf.org ,A.ttorneys for Plaintiffs

't i:

10
11 I2

r_3
L4 15 L 6

SIJPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OII (iALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDII

DANIEL TEU'fLE. an indir,,i<lual; LUCY TEUTLFI,an indiviclual;

L1 1B I9

case No.: d$qi

KATHLEEN N{ANSKER,,an indir,'idtral; JORGELEBR0N, r?rn individual; ANIMAL LEGAL DEFEN:;]I FU]I{D,a nonproht organization; Plairrtiffs,
VS.

20 27
22 23

24
25
L O

CITY OF PALM SI'RINGSI: PALM SPRNGS POLICE ]DI]PAF|.TMENT: PALM SPRINGS ANIMAL []ON]'ROL:

VERIFIED PIII]]'ITION FOR WRIT OF' MANDATE (C.C.P.$ 1085, et seq..)) ; COMPLAI NT'IIOR INJUNCTIV]FI RELIEF (C.C,P. VIOLATIOF{OF' $ 526a); cAL. BUS.& JPROF. CODE $172100; NEGLIGEI{T NIISREPRESENTII.TIC) N; VIOLATION 0F CAL. GOV. COIDE {l 6250.

21
2B

VERIFtTiD PETITION FORWRITOF MANDATEAND COMPLAINT IFOR IN.IUNCTIVE REI-IEII

his ,rflicial capacityas ALBERTO FR,{NZ, TN the Chief of Police.Citv of PalrnSprings; TEDD NICKEI{SOhJ,in his;ofj.rcialcerpacrty as Directorof'Palm SpringsAnimallControl, IIRII]NDSOF THE PAI-M SPRINGS ANIMAL SHELTER.a California corporation, DOIIS 1 through10,inclusive, Defendants.

10

Plaintifls and Petitioners D.ANIEL TEUTLE, LUCY

L1

TEUTLE, KAIIHLIlE\l

MANSKER, JORGE LIlBllON, and .z\NIMAL LEGAL DEFEf.lliE FL|ND ("Plaintiffs"), b,v
L2
13
I4

pul"suant 1.tl and through their undersignedcounsel,bring this action for a v"rit of mandatis t<r section1085,et seq.,and ft'r injunctiverelief pursuatrt CaliforniaCode of Civil Procedure arL<l againstDefenclantsi section526a,allegingas fcrlllows CaliforniaCode of Civil Procedure CITY' OF P'ALM ;SPRINGS;PALM SPRIIIG|:I POLICtr DEI?AR'flvlF;N-t'; Respondents pAt.M SPRIN(3SANIMAIL CON'fROL; ALBERTO FRANZ',it:this official capacityas []hi,rf capacityas Direclor of TEDD NICKERSON, in his crlfficial of Police,City of Palm Springls; FRIENDS rDF'fHF) palm SpringsAnirnal Control (collectively, the "City Defbndants"); 10,, ,{NIMAL SHELTER, a California corporation;and DOES I thrrrrutghL PAI-M SPRINC}S (collectively, the "Defenclants"): irrclusive TNTRODUCTION of in an ongoingpr,attetr in and continueto errg,age have engaged Defendanl.s The Ci1.y' violating stateand local la'w at the animal shelter("the Sheher")operatedby. and locateCirl, 'th. glily in this Defendants'continuedviolationsof law, as iletail,r:d the City of Palm Sprrings. petition and Complaint. htrve resultedin,, and continueto resurltin, among oth.erttrings,the of anclwrongful killing of numerousimpoundedaninrals,in direct contravrlnllic)I1 unnecessary

15

t6
I1

1B
I9 20 2I

22

a A L 1

25

26 21
)a

I N . I U N C T I V ER I ] L I I ] , F I ) E I T . I O NF O F (W R I . ] . O FM A N D A T E A N D C O M P I , A I N . I . F O R VERIITIHD

th'o policies of the State of Califcrrnia,codified into law, to p:romoteadoption rather tharr as well as financialand otherinjury tc Plaintiffs. of theseernimals, euihanasia The Shelter is advertisedas "the only municipal no-kill shelter in the Coar:herlla proportionof the cats and dogs impoundedat the Sh,elten are Vralley." Hower,'er, a substantial about the "n,o-llill'' in fact euthanized.In addjtion to disseminatingmisleading statr3ments rvith narture of their shelter to the public, Defendantsroutinely viollate state and local lrilrry of shelter animals impounded at their Sihelter.The Palm Siprings respect to euthanas;ia impoundedat its Slhelten. mandalorl,[e14ing periods for arrirrr:rls Municipal Code pre:scribes the, routinely violale the l;aw by euthanizinganimals prrior to the expiration <11' D,efendants recordson the a.nirrnalsr fail to marintain Defendants holding period. F'urther, legally mandated
l0
t1 I2 13
I4

impounded,as required by law. By this Petition and Complaint, Plaintiffs ask this tCoutttcl 6,'titl to ceaseand desist{iom further violations o,f linvr,and to immediat:ly order Defendants entrustedto them, arrtl to the public at largi:, ir:L performing their duties to the anLimals with the laws ofthe Stateo{'Californiaand local laws. accordance JUR.ISDICTION AND VENUE

15
L6 L1

1.

-fhis

to CaliforniaCoder;1'Clivil Court hrlsjurisdictionover this actionpursualtt

Article 6 .{i1l). Section1085and CaliforniaConstitution Procedure 2. Code of Civil Pro,c;e<lute: Venureis proper in this court pursuantto Caljifor:nia

r_B
L9

Sections 393 and :\94 becauseDefendantsand their Shelter ttre located in Palm Sprrings, RiversideCounty.
20 2I 22 23 24 25
26 21

PARTIES 3. Plaintiffs DanieI and l-ucy Teutle ("the Te'ut]es") are residents of In.clio,

liprrinplr; California. They regularly volunteeredat and attendedevents that benefit the PalmL Animal Shelterat all relevanttimes. 4. 'the Teutles believed that the Shelter was a "rro-kill" facility based on the:

Friendsof the Palm Springs,\nimal Shelter. madeby Defendants representations

2B RELIE] INJUNCTIVE FORWRITOF MANDATEAND COMPLA]NTF()R VERIFII]D PETITION

5.
2

The feutles 'volunteered sienificanttime and effoft filr the benefit of the I'alrn

SpringsAnimal She[ter.
3
4 5 6 1 B

6.

In May 2010,the

'feutles andtheirdaughters spenlzrn entiredayassistirrg; in the

park. adjacent construction of a dog exercise for' thr: exclusive to the Shelter, benefitof the dogsimpounded at the shelter. 7.
is anLd

hasa significantkill rate In early 2011, the Teutlesdiscovered that the She':lter

not in fact a "no-kill" shelter.

8. The'feutles had relied on DefendantFriends'repres;entations that the iShelte:r

the Shelter. wrts"no-kill" when the1, contritrut[ecl time, materials, and effort to rassjisting
10 11 I2 13 I4 15 L 6 T1

9.

made contributiorLrs ,r\s a result of therse misleadingstatements, the l'er"rtles c,1'

tirne, materialsand volunteereffirrl.to DefendantFriendsof t.hel?alrl SpringsAnimall iShelte:r had known the trureki[l for the benefit of th.eSheltt:rthat they would not have made if thLe'y ratesat the Shelter. 10. .,\n order of the Court awarding restitution to tlre l-r:utles would reclressr the

economicinjury sufferedas a resultof DefendantFriends'misreprresentations. I 1. and businessovrnerin Plaintiff KathleerrNzlansker is, and has been, & re:s;i,Ce:trt

1B 79 20 2I

a citizen and bursiness the City of Palm Sllrings, California firr approximately20 yearsi. ,Ars .Ms.Manskeris assessed and irsliatrleto pay, and wiithinone owner in the City of Palm Sprin.gr;, year beforethe comrnencement olftlhisactionhaspaid, a tax thr:rein. 12. abuseand in a mannercontraryto the liaw constitutes Operationof the Slhelter

))
23
a A L A

wraste of the public funds allocated.[orthat purpose. and waste. 1 3 . l\s a taxpayerr, Ms. I\{ansker is injuredby suchrnismanagement 14.
26 21 2B

25

law would redness .z\norderof the (.lourtenjoiningfurtherviolationsrc;lttre Ms;.

Mansker'sinjury'.

'WRl'I IN JU N C TIV R E E LIE I. V ER IF IE D PIT T IT ION l ' -OR O F MA N D A TE A N D C OMP T,A INIrC T )R

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 B

15.

Springs,Califomia an,J is a residentof the City of lPralnr I'lainrtiffJorge Lebrrc,n

of the Citl'of'Palm Springsfor 18 years. As a citizenof the City of Palrn hasbeena resident the and is liable to pay, anLd'wiLthinone year belflo,re Mr. Lebron is assesse,d Strrrings, of this action hils paid, a tax therein. cc,mnlencement 16. abuse, to the law constitut,es of ttre Shelterin a manner contriary' Manergement

to the operationof the s;helter. wasteof the putrlic fundlsallocarted arLd

17.
18.

and waste. z\s a taxpayer,IVlr.Lebron is injuredby suchmisn:Lanaglement in i:r r\n order by the CrcurtenjoiningCity Defendantsl,romoperatingthe sh,slter

manner contrary'to law wrtulcl redressMr. Lebron's injury writh regard to waste clf public;
10

fu.nds.
11 I2 13 74 15 I6

19.

ancl to Cit1,Defendants'Sh,:ltr:r ln or aboutthe spring of 2009 Mr. Lebron wen1.

the licensefor his rlog,, renewed 20. communicationilnd lloclt: Mr. Lebron observedpc)or When renewinghis license,

of the Shelter. amongthe stafT re,cord-keeping 21. lic,:nsetag, DefendrlnllF'alnt ,Althoughhe haclpaid the fee for, and received.thLe

71 1B 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25
Z O

to call him for over two monthsto inform him therlhir; SpringsAnimal Control staff corLtinued dog licensewas in rreedof renewal, 22. with docume,rtls'1lcrn obliged to return to ttLeShLelter Mr. llebron was uiltinrately

paid the licensefee. to provethat he had indeedalre,acly 23. Mr. Letrronli:l that Mr. Lebron has observed, As a result of the mismanagement

Palna by Defendant[ own dog shouldhe ever be irnprounded aboutthe welfare o1'hLis concerned r,r,rs1p1'; notified if his rdog that he might not be properlly SpringsAnimal Corrtrol.He is conoerned Jholdirrp; t6 be impoundedgr that lshelter staff would not observethe statutorily mandatedl P,eriod.

)1

2B RELIEF INJUNCTIVE AND COMPLAINl F.OR FOR\I/RITOF.MANDATII F,ETIT'ION VERIF.IED

24.

Shortly after hisi experience at City Defenr:lants'shelter, Mr. [-eLrron

he was concerned arbout Be:causrl the: near his residence. a stray dog on the slire:et encountered t[obring the dog home rn'ithL shelter,Mr. Lebron chos;e urrlawfuloperationof City DefenLdants' it to the strelter" him ratherthan deli''rer 25. of the Shelter,Mr, ,\s a result of the City Defendants'unlaw'ful op,.:1s1isn

in finding the o\ /ner of the stray dog and Lebron spenttime and incurred personalexpenses dog to itsihorne. returningthe str:zry 26. frorn f'urther lf'an order \ /eremarle by the Court enjoining the C:ityDefendants

by the law, Mr. L,ellron as rer:luired and mandatingproper record-keeping violationsof the lav,r
LO 11
1 t

the possibilityof his dog beitrgirnpounded. trbourt would no longerbe concerned 27. were enjoined {iom turrtherviolations of thr: [avv', Furttrer,if City Drefbndants

Mlr. Lebronwould tre able to deliver strayanimalsto the shelterratherthan using his owr f.irnLrr: bac,k to their owners. to deliver therrn and resources 28. Plaintiff ArLimal Legal I)efense Fund (,{[.Dlr) is a national non-profit

13
1 A t !

15
1 a I O

aspect of animal law. AL,DF has s;pentover three clec;ildel; involved in ever.y' organtzation is the use of the legailsy's;l.ent and the law; its main focus; on issuesinvolving anirnerls fcrcusing tcr assistcourts and legislaturesin caruyingout the public poli,r:yagainst animal cnrelty anLd system. of animalsthroughthe lcrgr:ll the protectionof the inte,rests a<lvancing 29. ol' to end the suf'fering efforts to use the legal l;ysrtem ALDrF's groundllrearking

L1

1B
19 20 2I

and more than I [(),1]C)0 try hundredsof dedicatedattornerys a|used animals are)supporrted members.
22 23 24 25 26 21
,a

30.

andthe enfilrcettre:nt ir, s]helters of animals in the protection ALDIFis involvecl

A.LDFhas focused on animalwelfare, As an organization cc,nditions. 1brshelter of regulations in shelters. of anirnalrs about thetreatment informerfion, in obtaining aninterest

M ' A N D A I ' E A N D C O M P L A I N ] F , [ ) RI N J I ] N C T I V ER E L I E F FOR \^/R11'OF V E R I F I E DF , E T I I ' I O N

31.

l\s a result of De:fendant City of Palm Springs' unlawful refusal to trrro'ride,

public recordsregardingth,oPa.hnSpringsAnimal Shelter,A.LDF'has been denied erccess tcr inforrnation to rvhichAI-DF is entitledandupon which ALDF'g \;\,rrft depends. 32. r\n orderrequiring; Defendant City of Palm Sprin6;s to comply with the l:r,n,and

produce thoserecor<ls woul<J re{Jress A[,DF's injury. 33 . DefendantCity of Palm Springs is a politic;alsubdivision of the Stal e: o1'

and existiLng Califirrniaduly organrzed underthe laws of the Stateo1'Clalifornia. 34.

10

Defendant Palm liprings Police Departmentis the primary law enfcrrr]enrenl.

and protectingthrepublic, in the City of Palm Spr:ingr;, and is chargedwith preserr,'irLg agienoy Animal Control anclthe' and with operatingPalrn iSprrirrgs arrd animalswithin its boundarie,s,
L1 t2 L3 I4

Palm Springs.r\nirrralShelter as a division of the Departrnent. ,A.ssuch, the Palm fiprirrg;sr animal Police Departnrentis responsiblefor enforcing all State anLdlocal laws governing:; within the Citv. and the trea:mento1'aninLals shLelters 35. of the Pahn [ipr'lng,s; DefendantPalm liprings Animal Control ir; tr clir,'ision

L5

A,nimalShelter,enforcirr6l state: for operatingthe Palm Springr; responsible PoliceDepartment,

L6 L1 IB 19

in the city of Palm liprirrg;sr ser.ric,:rs other animal-related and pro''u'irling arrdlocal anirnallar,vs, services. as lost and found and licerLsing surch 36. tlbLe Chief of the Palm lipring;sr Alberto Franz ("Franz") is currerLtllr Deferrdant

2A 2I

forrthe: DefendantFranz is the City olficial responsibl,r: In that capacirty', Police DepartmLent. ,rf the Palm Springs Animi'rl Shelter, and for ensurini aclministrationand managr;men1. employsss with all applicable lita,te and local laws g,rrvertting; complianceby subordinate,

22
2?

animal shelters. 37. DefendantTedd lrlir;kerson("Nickerson") has bcen the Director of the Palrn

.>A

25
26 21

D,:ltrndanl. as Director,, July 2010. In his capa"city SpringsAnimal Sheltersinceapprrsryirnately vvit.h act in accordanc;e all employe,es fc,r ensuringthat subordinate Nickersonis resporrsible Stateand locerl[awsgoverninganinralshelters.

2B
VERIFI.I;DP]]TI-IION I]C)R WRII'OF MANDA'I'E AND COMPL,AINTIIOR INJT]NC]'IVERELIEI'I

38.

("Friends") w'asfonnedl of the Palm SpringsAnimal Slbelter DefendantFr:iencls

as, a California Nonprofit Corlroration in 1996, for the lpurp()seof providing :;urp1llies' itt, and volunteertime to Palm SpringsAnimal Control. Friendshas beenen6;ag;ecl equipment, of zr to engagein, active solicitationof funds from the p,ublicfor the construction and continues lacility in the Ciityof Palm Springs. new animalshelter 39. whether iinrlil'id,ual, Plaintiffs do not know the true names arrd cerpilcities,

corporate, partnership,or otherwise. of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 thrcr'ugh10, fir;titious names put'suan1. tcr inclusive. Plaintifl's there,foresue these Defendantsby rSur;h and believe,and basecl section474. Plaintiffsare in.lbrmed Codeof (livil Procedure Calif,crnia
10
11

fbr thLe: 10, and each of them, are ljiatrlein some capac,it'y thereonallege,that Does 1 thr,ourgh 'Wh,ln of D<lesI and capacities F'laintiffsascertain the true narrnes violations allegedherein. through 10, Plaintiffs will seek leave of the Court to arnend this Petition and Crrrnp,liaint accordingly. 40. allege,that at all timct; and believe,and basedthLeroon Plaintiffs are inlfbrrnred

L2

13
L4 15 L6 I1

joint r,zenlittrer rc:presentative, or was the agent,servamt, hereto.eachof the Def'endants rerlevant hereinafter alle65ed., eac,lt Defendants and in doing the tJrirrgs of eachollthe remainrinrg ernployee servitude,represenrtal.ion, Defendantwas acting w,ithin the courseand scopeof said agextcl/, jcrintventure,or employment,rvith the advance consent, acqu:iescenc,s, knowledge,pern:Lislsion) or subs,equent ratificationof eachand everl'remainingDefendi'trrt. direcl.ion authorization, S'I:\TUTORY BACKGROU NI)

1B
L9

20

41.
2I
22
ZJ

[]ill 1785("SB 1il85"'). alscr lienat,.r Legislature enacted tn 1!)98, the Callifbrnia

in known as the I{ayden L,a'w,in an effort to reduce the ral.eso.l euthanasiaof anLirnals; as alternratir,'es 1.cl an,cl to facilitate adoptionand crwnelrerdemption California'sanimal sheltersl care o{' while irnproving the overall living conditionsof animals entrustedto l.hrl: euthanasia, intent by estitlrlis;Jhin,;r the Lergiri;lerture's SB 1785indicates thoseshelters.r\mong otherthingrs, in California's shelters,sllecifying operatinghours l.tt of care lbr erninrals minimum standards prrovide better accessfor vrorkirrgpeople to animals for owner rsdemption or adoption.anLcl

24

25 26 21
z6

pETIT|ON IrOR U/RIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAIN't Fr-)RIN.TUNCTIVE Rtjt,tHF VE,RIFII]D

innposing mandettory holding preriodsfor stray animals to allou, owlerS to find lost arrinrals. and for actively' prorroting adoption rather than euthanasia.

42.

'fhe

provisions of threl{ayden Law have bee,n incorporatedinto section.s o1,thLe,

California Civil Code, the Iroo,dand Agricultural Code, and thr: rPenal Code. Each of rhos;e: Codesclearly expr)sses the Legislature's intent to promotealte:matives to killing 111emirnals; inrpounded in (lalifbrnia's shelters. (Civ. Code $ 1834.4;Foor:lik Ag. Code g 1700.:t; F,en C,cde $ 599d).
43. Ilecause enftlrcement of certain provisions of the Hayden Law h.&rj 1br,es11

su.spendeddue to revocation of lunding for those portions of the law deeme,il t9 be

10

reimbursable state mandates, the Shelter is currently obligatell to abide by the fi:I1<lr,r4ng requirements:

11 L2
13 I4 15

a. to observea five day holding period for impoun,ledanimals(or ser,,en rjliays fcrr licenseddogr;)during which the animals rnay not be euthanized liF,ahn SpringsN,lunicip:ll CodeSection10.20.030);

b. tc,maker)wnglr-rglinquished animals available for adoption throughout the

L6

holding perio'd (F'ood & Ag. Codeg3175a);

T1

1B
L9 20 2I

c. to maintarna.file describingeachanimal impounded,beginningon the cla.y the animal is received in the shelter, and tc, maintain records on thre whereaboutsof renimals sent fbr veteriniarycrareand details of such carr3 provided(PalrnSpringsMunicipalCodeSlecticrn 10.20.030; Cal. PenaICod,l

22 23 24 25 26 21 2B

r.) ; $5 e 7
d . t o provide prompt veterinarycare to injured crats and dogs (Cal. Civ, Clodr:

{iti1834,1846:PenalCodeI

597fl:

VERIFIIID PETITION FOR'WRII'OFMANDATEAND COMPL,{l},lT IrORINJUNCTIVE RELIIIt;

t'

programstrc regulatt,: 1.orefrain lrorn establishing and implemr,:nting ,81 dlangerous as to breed(Frcr:,r1 or viciousdogsthat arespe,;ific F,otentially Itg. Codr: $ .}16tt3);

2 3 4 5 6 1 B 9 10

trf, treat animalrskindly, to provide prompl veterinary cate, to pro,,,icil,: (Cal. Cir,'. nul.rition, Code $$ 1834,1846), adequate water,and shelter FACTUAL BACKGFIOUh{I) prior to the expiratt'onoJ'legallymandatedholding pert'ocls E'uthanasia Plaintiffsare infbrnredand believethat: 44. T'he Shelter routine:lyeuthanizesanimals beforc the end of the fiffh dtry o:[

11

irnpoundment.
T2 13 I4 15 L6 I1

45.

A review o1' rec,ordsfor the period August 2\.t09through Decembe'r,100!)

ll'0 receivedpursuanttrt a public recordsrequestrevealedthat the Shelterkilled approxirnately no and kittens on or before the filth day of impoundmentduring that period. Thr:r\lvvas; crats indicationthat theseanimalsv/ere unweanednewbornswitthouttheir:mothersor in:e,rnediably suffering.

1B
IY

46.

November201Ct receiverJ for the periodJuly 2010 throueth A review of recordsi

killetl a'pproximately 6z[certs and pursuant to a public recordsrequestrevealedthat the Shelt,er There was no in<li.catiort the fiflh day'of irnpoundment during that pr,:riod. kittenson or beforer without their mothersor irremediablysu1[[e:ring. that theseanimalsv/ereunweanednewborns 47. 2009 ancl.ilul:r ;20]il) Finally, during thr:periodsAugust2009 through December

20 2I 22 23 24 25
zo

holdinlil killed approximately40 cats and kittens befcrrt,: tluough Novernber2010" the lJhLelter newbomsvrithout without arryindicationthat the animalswere unl'^/eaned them even 72 trours;, minimum holdirrgperior:l their mothersor irremediablysuffr:ring,in violation of the state'wide of the HaydenLaw, that rvasin effect prior to ttreenactment

21
t6

REL,IEF INJTJNCTIVE V/RIT'OF MANDATI: AND COMPLAIN'II'F'OR VEIIIFTIED PET'l'flONFOF|.

r0

1 2 3

Failure to mnke ow)ner-relinqu,islcal animals available for adopti'ort the day after impt5t.,11p,7tment, Plaintiffs are infornred and believe that:

48.
4 5 6 1 B 9 10 11 I2 13

Def-endants routirrely fail to make owner-relinqlurishr:d animals available fbr

adoptionduring the entireholdjinglleriod. 49. Defbndants routinellg cite a holding period of'ten r:lays or more when reftrsring 1.g

adoptanimalsto interested parties. F,ailureto maintain adequa,te rec,ord,s on the animals impounded Pllainl.iffs are infonned and beli,ev'e that: 50. I)efe.ndants rroutinelyf'ail to maintain complete and accuraterecordrs c)flr th.e:

animalsimpounded. 51. Impound cards lor the periods August 2009 throug,hlDecember 2009 iand,Juh'

L4 15 I6 71 1B I9 20
) 1

201(l through November 2010 received pursuant to public recondsrequests re''n,eal l.hat Defendantsfiequently failed to rnaintain accurate and <lompleterecords on the arnirnalsl impounded, including the cjircumstances underwhich eachanimi,rl was impounded,and,/<lr ilny' descriptionof veter.inary treatnrentprovided beyond routin,o vaccinal.ions. In many cas;e:s, the) jit rva.sr recordsdid not provide inform,atiion on the final dispositionof the animal, i.e. whethr3r eurthanized. adopted,, or reclaim,;dby the owner. Fuilure to prctvide veterinar! cur<z Plaintiffsare informedand believethat: 52. Defendants do n,lt provide prompt veterinarytreatrnenl. to injured catsrlnd rJog;s

a a
L L

) 2

z q

impounded in their [ihelter.

25 26 21 2B VERIFIED PHTI'|ION F'OR WIIIIIOTI MANDA'fEAND COMPLAI}{'f I.OF{ I\JUNCTIVERELIEIT tl

53.

for all recordsrrc:latinLg to Recordsreceivedpursuantto public recordsrequests

pertaining to veterina.ry thal thrl records do not contain informrltlLon d,ogsand cats reve,als 'veterinerrian of record. and do not specifyany beyondroutine vaccinartions treatment 54. 25 catsand 15 dogs weril found dead in their l.etrnelsr. In 2(109 approximal.ely

providedveterinarytreattnent,, that thoseanimalshad lbeen in the rer;ords Thereis no indicati,cn 55. 2010, approxinnately During the perioclfiom July 2010 through Nove:nrber "1".:i

tha.t cats and 4 dogs were flounddead in their kennels.There is no indication in the reoor<l:; providedvr:terinary treatment. thoseanimalshad b,een 56.
10 L1 L2

.[1i During the perioclliom July 2010 throughNovernber2010, approxinrately'

1br apparen.tl'y oI improundment, on or beforethe fifth dlay' catsand 11 kittens were eurthani:zed animalsgaveno detailrs relatedtcrt:hos;e The maiority oIthe impoundrecords reasons. nredical on specific medical conditiorrsor veterinary treatment rendel'ed,and did not provide an'/ rnot treatable or were irremediabtysufl'ering. that the ernimals'were irrdication or vicious dogs in ,:tnnqnnet,r of'a prograt?xtha,tregtilatespotentially dangeroLt,\ I)stalblishment

13
I4 15

as trsbreed s,oeci,fic
I6 L1 LB L9 20

that: are intornredand belie've F'laintiffs 57. ;includingmixes o1'those Defendantsrou,tinelykill specific breedsof dc,lgr;,

leurge numbers. in disproportionatelly b,reecls, 58. including Pitbulls and (]hovrrl, that certainbreedsof <logs, Publlicrecordsreve.al

2I

))
Z )

at Dre ndants' shelterat ratesof over 70o , significantlyhigher than tlteroverrll.l are euthantzed (approximatel'y :r(\%)for dogsat the Shelter". rateof euthanasia

24
25 26 21 )a

Iiailure to treat animals kindll, anclhumanely are inforrnedand believe: f'lairLtiffs

59.

do not treat animalskindly and humanelythe Shelter. Defr:ndants

RELI[]t; trORINJUNCTIVE troll.WFil'fOF MANDATEAND COMF'LhlN"l' VERIFIED PE'|ITIONI 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 B 9 10 11 72

60'

,A.sd-escribe<l above:in paragraphs44 through ,1J, Defendantsroutirrely, kill

animetls without obserr"ing the stal.utorily mandatedholding pel'ic,dfor owner redenrpt1'rrL ,:rr acloption. z\s describecl above in paragraphs 52 through 5ti, Defendantsdo no1 pr..vicle, necessary veterinarytreatmentto inrpounded animals. The indoor/o'utdoor design of the dog kennelspt,:nnitsentry of birds i1t6 ttre kennel area..'\sa result,the dogslthemselves, .l,er..t, as well as their fo,:rcl and water dishes,ar.e often rlontaminated vrith bird fe,les,posinga potentialhealthrisk to the animalsand tp llrtunanr;. Defendants'violations reflecl ateohgoingpattern anclpractice of ttiglationsat the Shehe,, Plaintiffsare inltrrm,:dand trelievethat: 62' 61-

63.'Ihe
r-l '1 A 1 9

t l i t yD e [ e n d a nv tr i; o' l a t i o n s the law, as oulli:nedabovein paragraphs of 44

thr:oug,h 62, arereprrJsentati''re c,fa longstanding patternand practiceof disregardfor the lawri applicrable to animalshelters in rllalifornia. 64. Priorto thesuspension of certain provisionso[the l{ayclenLaw in2009 du,e 1.rl zr

15 76 I1 1B 19 20 2I

lackoI state funding, the City Defendants wereobligated to comply r,vith all provisionsof'r:ht: Haryden Law,butror"rtinely fleile,J riodo soin thefollowing ways:
a" B:r disreE;arding the holding periods applicable under the Hay,d,en 13u,, Dr:fendants routinely euthanizedanimals on crn' beflorethe fourth trusine's., day of impoundn:Lent in violationof the Haydenl,aw (Food & Ag.{locle:$iJ 11006,31108, 31752).Impound recordsshorv that betweenJanLurary zrndl rwere) July 2009, approximately270 catsand kirttens euthanized prior trc [hr:r fourth busines;s dery jtrstification; of impoundment withc,utlelrg;al

)) 23 24
? q

b. B), failing tcr establish and implement a stan,cardized protocol for rthr: assessment of' cats believed to be feral, and unlawfullv euthanizirns i:ats

26 21 2B

VERIITIED PE'|ITION FORVV'RII'OF MANDATEAND COMPT,ITINT FOII INIJUNCI'IVE RELIH:F

r3

dluring the rnandatoryholding period by airb'itrarilyclassifying thronlai:; "feral" (Foo,:l & Ag. Code$ 3 1752.5); Ily failing lo treat impounded animals kindly arrd to provide tlrem rvjLth a.dequatenutr:ition, water, shelter, and prornpt veterinary cartie'rv'hen rrecessary', fbr the duration of impoundment. riCiv. Code $$ 181 5, lt8:i4, 1846,2C180). Defendants routinelyeuthanizecl animalsfor medicarI rei:lson:i vvithoutrecorcling any indicationthat they were irnemediably suffering;, and in at least a ,Cozeninstances euthanized anirnals whose dor;rumetrted conditions\ ierereadily treatable rreterinary with appropr;Late care;
10
11 I2 13 L4

d. []y failing t<l keep accurate and comple,te records on eactr anirrral impounded,to rtrackthe animals within the s.frelter system, and to nlal,u: reasonable efforts to ascefiain ownership ol' the animals to ftrcilitertt,: redemption (Civ. Code$ 1tl4(';Irood& Ag. Code{iS3lllCt8, by their owners 32001,3200t3,31752). Defendants violatedthe law by failing to recc,r,cl tkrr,: circumstrences of impoundment, the datesof irrLpoundment and dir,;posritic'n,

i5 L6 I1 1B I9
ZU

the namesof'perisonnel who impounded, treatodi, adopted,or euthanize,cl thc: animals,or the detailsof any veterinarytreatnlent. representations lv,tisleading v,itlh,re,gard to the nature oJ'sheltero.(t'rattions Plaintiffsare infornredand believethat: 65. DefendantFrierrdshas made statements on its v,'ebsite, as well in aclv,o.rtis;inLp;

2I 22
??

and other promotionalmatt:rialsdisseminated to the generalpubliic,that the Shelter is ra""nokill" r;helter that doesnot eurtharize adoptable animals. 66. Defendant Friends'websitestates Animal Sheltcris "tlht': that the Palm lilprings

24
25
za

no-kill shelter irr the Coachella only rnunicipal Valley."

21

2B VERIF'II]D PETII'ION FORWRITOIT I.ORINJUNCTIVE RELIE;F MANDAI'TJ AND COMPI,AINT t4

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 B

67.

in order to solicit rdo,neiliLon:; on its 'website: Friendsusesthis statement Def-endant

facility in the City of Palm Spr:ings. of a new sheXter for the construction

68.

to the public rto soli,cit these stateme,nts DefendantFriends disseminates

A revien' ,lf facilityin the Citl' of PalmSprings. of a newshelter for the construction donal.ions at thelSlhellter, rateo'feuthanasia reveak; that.irr fact.thereis a substantial records Defendants'
69. iLn:200r) of live unclaimedcats imp,;undedat the Sheh.er:' Approximately 7\)o/'o

by Defendants. \ /ereeuthanized 70. by the Sheltertrel.rr''etln of live unclaimedcats impcrur:Lded Approximately 85o/,',

were euthanized by Defendants. 2t010 andNovr:mber July':2010

LO L1 L2 13 L4 15 I6 I1 1B

71.

itr 12:00!) dogs impoundedby the Shelte:r of live unclaimed Approximately48o/,;

bv Defendants. v/ereeuthanized 72. of live unclaimeddogs impoundedby the Sheltertlel"vre,r:tt Approximately S(io/'ia

by Defendants. November2010 were euthanized July rand ITailureto produce recordspursuant to a Public RecordsReques:t F'laintiffsare inforntedand believethat: 73. ,a On January 28i,,2011, attorney for Plaintiffs, Vlarla Tauscher, sulbnnilted

l9 20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 21

completerecordsf,or all dog;s requgstfor recordsto DefendantOity of Palm Springs,seeking; .lurne 1,2010 thr<lugh and r;atsimpoundedby the Palm SpringsAnimal Shelter lrom Ja"nuary 2010. 30.2010,and for ttremonth of'December, 74. a requestfor recordstrothe City submitl.ed 31,2011, Ms. Tauscher On .fanuary

gf P;almSprings, seeking complete records for all dogs and ci:rtsimpounded by ttre Palr:n datethe 3i1.2011, and up to thLr: 1,201I throughJanuary Animal Shelterfiom J'anuary Siprings for copying and review. recordswould be processed

2B
INJUNCTIVE RELIl-]fi F'O]l WIII'f OF MANDATE AND COMP'LAIN"I'IIOR. VERIF'IEDPETITIONI l5

75.

On lFebruary' 74,20[ 1, Ms. Tauscher received a le:tter from the City Cle:rk 6{'th,,:

City' of Palm Sprirrgs,indicating that DefendantCity o1'Palm liprings would not proyide th,,: reque,sted recordsc'f, all dogs and cilts impoundedby the shelter. 76. Defi:ndant Clity of Palm Springs acknowledgecl in its responsethi,rt it had

producedrecordsfbr srimillar allready requests made for diflbrenl.time periods,but staifecjl tfrat br3cilUlso those prer,'ious requestshad consumedsignificant stafl'lime, it consideredthe nrost recentrequestto b,,:undull'burdensome and would not comply. Instead,DefendanLf City olf Palm Springsprovirledonly the recordsthat it had in its colnput,ilr system,in electronicforrnLrall only.
l0 l1

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Petition for Writ of Mandate (By Plaintiffs Teutles,Mansker, and Lebron agiainst tlre City Defendants) 77. Plaintiffs re-allegeand incorporateby referencet,:ar;h and all of the allega:tiorrrs

L2
13
L4

contaiined in the precedingparagralrhs of this Petitionand Clomplaint, as though fully st:t1brth herein.
L5
1 a I O

78.

Base,J on the:f-acts describedin paragraphs 44 throrryh47, Plaintiffs alllege rtharl

I1

the City Defbndantshave violaterl and continue to violate Palrn Springs Municipal Ci,o6e: 10.20,03 0 b v:

1B
I9

a. euthanizing aninrals on or before thefifth dayrlf impoundment withoutlr:gerl justification;

b. failing to maintain acomplete and accurate file on each animal imp<lunded.

20
2I 22
)2.

79.

Base<l on the fb,ctsrlescribedin paragraphs 48 and 49, 52 through 5t1i, rand. ii!)

throuE5h 62, Plaintiflt allegethaLt the City Defendants have violat,;:d and continueto vi,olate the
provisions en:forceable of the HaydenLaw by:
a. flailing to provide necessary veterinary treat.ment to injured animals;, ii.n violation of t.lal. Civ. Code $$ 1834 and 1846,erndCal Penal Codr, {i 5;,)7f,

24 25 26
21

2B VERIFIED PITTITION FORWRITOIrMANDATEAND COMPLAINT F'CrR INJUNCTIVE RELIEt.I

l6

Defendants' records do not contain inlflormi,rtion pertaining to ysl;sfi11s1"',2 treatmentrer;eived by the animals,or the nameof any veterinarian r:lf'recorcl. l:lecause doc,umentation of animalsbeing sent for veterinarycare is requirerl utnder Cal. Fenal Code $ 597.1,the inferenceisithat no such treatrnr:nl. w'ir; provided; b. l.ailing to matrie owner-relinquished aninratls available for ardoptirrrr llhroughout the holdingperiod(Food& Ae.Codeg3l75a); r[]odr,: c. l.ailingto treat animalskindly and humanely,in violation of Cal. C.i,,r" ol' ttrr,: ii$ 1834 and 1846, by euthanizinganirnals prior to the expiratir:rn
10 l1

r;tatutorilyrequired holding period; and by lailing to provide prr:rntpt. arnd veterinarycare. adequate 80. Basedon the facts describedin paragraphs !i7 and 58, Plaintiffs allege: thi:rt thr,:

L2 13
I4 15 16 L1

City Defendants earry out a prc'gram of euthanizing specific breeds in disprop'o.rtionertr:: ,:rrr as a rneansof controlling dangerous dogs, in violatic,nof'state law prohilbitionL numb,ers or vicious dogs speciflrrrall'y of llrogramsthat regulatepotentiallydangerous a:; irnplementation (Cal.Foodl & Ag. CodeI 31683). to bre:ed. 81. duty to connply rvith and rninisterial have a clear,present T'heCity Defendants

1B
19

stateand local stal.utr::; the Haydenl-aw, F'almSpringsMunicipal Code, and all other rrr:levant of the Shelter. irr the operation

20

82.
2I

have failed to bring their operationof the Shelterintr: City Defendanls

dialoglue aboult andongoing repeated noticeof theirvio,lations the law despil.e comp,liance'uvith
22
23 24

thelaw. un,Cer theiroblisations

83. remedy and n,oplainL, Plaintiffs and Petitionershave no feasiblea,Cminisl.rative

renaecl'1i speedy and adequateremedy in the ordinary course of law, fhe only adequzrtt,:
26 21

pursuant to Codr:: of (-livil to Plaintilfs lbr relief is this Petitionfor Writ of Manr:late available seq. Procsdure $ 1085e',t

2B
M A N D A T E A N D C O M P L A I N I ' F ' O RI N J U N C T I V ER E I , I I l ; F : RIT'OIT VEITIFIED P E T I ' I I O N} . ' O FW

tl

84.

Plaintiffs and Petitionerswill suffer irreparableharm if the requested relief-

not granted, as will the public at large. SECOND CAUSE OF'ACTION cllaim for Injunctive Relief Pursuant to code ctiv. proc. 526a $ (By Plaintiffs Teutles,Mansker, and Lebron Against the City Defendantsi) 85. Plaintiffsre-allege and incorporate by reference eachand all of the al1egati6ns

containedin the pre,;eding paragra;lhs of this PetitionanclComplaint,, as though fully rset lirrl.lh herein. 86.
10
11 L2

As dr:scribedin paragraphs44 through 62 above, the City Defendlantrs ,trar,'rs

engaged in, and continueto eng,age in, violationsof stateand locill lar,v relatedto the opr:ra.1.ion of theirShelter. 87. The City Defenclants, in their unlawful conduct anclomissions,as set flrrl.trin

t3
I4 15
t-o

this Petitionand Cornplaint, continrte to misuseand to wastepublic funds allocated.for shelter operations. Defetrdants use taxpayermoney for shelteroperatinge><penses and for the sallriers of personnelwho ftril to perfo.rmtheir duties as mandatedby l.a',ru. By euthanizinganirnalrs ratherthan promoting adoption,the City Defendants mismanageptrblic funds by incurr.rinp; 1hg costsof euthanizingand disposingof animals and foregoing potential income from adoprtion fees"

I1 IB 79

88. injuries.

Plaintiffs andPetitioners haveno adequate remedy a1law for theredressr crftheip

20
2I

THIRD CAUSEOF ACTION

a a 1.1,

23 24 25
zo

Violationof the Unfair Competition Law, Cal.Bus.&; Prof. Code$ 17200r (By PlaintiffsTeutles AgainstDefendant ,F'riends) 89.
Plaintiffs re-alleg;e arrd incorporateby referenceei,rch and all of the allrcrgations;

r;ontained in the prec;eding paragraphs of this Petition and Complirint,as though fully s;et fbr:th her:ein.

21 2B VERIFIED PF]II'fION ITOR WRITOF'MANDATE AND COMPI-AINT [;OIIINJUNCTIVE RELIT]F

r8

90.

Basedon the facts described in paragraphs 65 thrrrughT2,Plaintiffsallegethat

D,sfendant Friends lhasviolated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code $ 17200 by engagingin u"nlavr,ful, urrfairand fraudulentbusiness acts and practiceswithin the meaningof California Bur;inerss; ,Jk Profesisions Code Si 77200^e,f seq. through its false and mirrlt:adingadvertising cr,fClit.l, Dr:fendants' Shelter as "no-kill." 91. DefendantFriends' misrepresentation of the Shelteras "no-kill" is i1t,r;n:cled t6

and liliely to deceivr:, poterrtial and currentdonorsto the Shelter. 92. As a, direct ancl proximate result of Defendant ]Friends' misrepresenLtal.iion"

Plraintiffs Teutleshztvesufferedmonetaryand other injury by corrtributingtime, materialsan6

10 l1

volunteereffort to DefendantFriencls and to DefendantPalm Springs,AnimalControl rthrarl rthey would otherwise no1. have contributed.

L2 13
1 /

IIOTIRTHCAUSEOF ACTION ViolationoI'theFalse Advertising Law, Cal.Bus.& Prof. Code$ 17500 et s,et7 (By PlaintiffsTeutles AgainstDefendant Friends)
93. Plaintiffs re-alle61e atrd incorporateby referenceeach and all of the all:g;ert.i,onr;

15
I O

contained inthe precedingparailraphs of this Petitionand Complaint,as though fullv s;et flcrrth
L1 1B 19

herein, 94. Basedon the facts describedin paragraphs 65 thrc,ugh72,Plaintiffs allr:11e thert

20 2I 22 23
a A

Defendant Friendshas violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code $ 17500b'y disseminating misik:arlin,e1 statements which DefendantFriendsknew or shouldhaveknown 1obe misleadins. 95. Defendant Frien,Cs'actions in violation of Section 17500 were farllse

.misleading suchthat the generalpublic is and was likely to be decr:i.red. 96. Plaintiffs allege: that Defendant Friends d isrseminated a
mir:;lea<.[in1l;

25

r;hinactertzation of City Defbndants'shelteras "no-kill" to indurlemembersof the pr-rblir: to rlonate money for thr:, conslructionof a new shelter.

26
)'l

2B
VITRIFIEDPFTITION IrOR WRIT OIr MANDATE AND COMPLAIN'f Ii(-)11 INJUNC'I'IVERELTEF' l9

97.

As a direct ancl proximate result of DefendantsFriends' misrepresieltltalion,

Pllaintiffs Teutleslost motreyb1'contributingtime, materialsand volunteereffort to tletienrJant Fr:iends and to Deli,rndant Palm SpringsAnimal Control that they would not have contributecl had tkrey beenfully informeclatroutthe Shelter'seuthanasia rates. 98. Plaintiffs ha'n'e no adequateremedy at law in ttr.alDef'endant Friend:t,,sp1ls.;.'

by this couLrt, willl continueto disseminate enjoirred falseand misleildingadvertising, a.s allegecl in violation,ofCaliforniaBusiness above,, & Professions CodeSection17500,et seq.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10
L1

NegligentMisrepresentation (81' Plaintiffs Teutle againstDefendantsFriends)

L2 13
L4 15 L6 I1 1B

99.

Plaintiffs re-allegeand incorporate and all of the allegatioru;r by referencee:ach

in the precedingparagraphs of this Petitionand Complaint,as though fully sr:tt fbrtlr contajined herein. 100. Basedon the far:tsdescribedin paragraphs 65 throtryh72, Plaintiffs alfle,eie that

in its characterizatu:rl Fr:iends has engagedin negligent misrepresentation of itli; Delenrdant Valley." shelter in the Coachella as"the only municipalnLo-kill shelter

l0l.
L9

Friendsnradetheserepresentirtions, Plaintiffsallegethat when Defendant it:

knorvn havr: thatthese representations werefalse, andthatPlaintiffs woulcl rel1, knewor should uponthem.
102. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant Friends inter:rLdeil for:'

20
21

22 23 24 25
26
)1

Pllaintiffs to rely on thesenepresentations.

irr rla.lcinpr, Friends'representations 103. Plaintiffsjustifi,ablyrelied on Defendant Frierrds. of time,rnaterials andvolunteer donations effortto Defendant

2B RELIEIT FORINJUNCTIVE VERIFII]D PETIT'ION F'OR WRITOF MANDATEAND COMPLAINT

)n

104. As ardirectl and pro.ximate cause of this negligent misrepresentation, lPtraitntillfr;; haver;uffered damages, including lossof time,materials andvolunteer effortcontributed tr:r thLe, strelter thatPlaintifls would not har,'e contributed hadtheybeena,,i/are of the truth.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Petition for Order under Cal. Gov. Code $ 6250 et seq. (By rPetitioner r\LDF againstDefendantCity ol'Palm Springs.) 105. Plairrtiffsr,o-allege and incorporateby referencee,ach and all of the alllegationr;

in the precedingparaLgraphs contained of this Petitionand Complaint,as though fully set forth herein. 106. Plairrtiffshave a fundamental right to access information regardingthe businesrs;

10
11 I2

pursuant State o1'the to the Clalifbrnia PublicRecords Act, Cal. Gor,.Clode $ 6250 et sery, 107. DefendantCity of Palm Springshas an obligationunder the CaliforniaPublir:; Act to promptly provide public records upon receipt of a requestthat reasonabll'' R,gcords identifiablerecords.unlessthoserecordsarecoveredby'a statutoryexemption. describes 108. Deferrdant City of Palm Springs hasprovidedno Lrgallyrecognizedjusfi{icatiorr

13
1 I L l A

15 16 L1

for its refusalto pro'vide the recordsrequested. 109. Baser1 on the conductdescribed 73 through76 above,l'}laintiflr; in paragraphs City of Palm SpringshasviolatedCal. Gov. Code $ 6253(b)by lailirng allegethat Defendant tcr lliov, producethe requested records.DefendantCity of Palm Springr; has also violated C.)a[. ,uvhich prohibitspublic entitiesfrom responding to informationreq;uestr; Crcde try' $ 6253.9(e), providingrecordsin electronicformat only.

1B
19 20

2I 22 23
- A

PRAYER FOR RELIEF prayfor reliefasfollows: Plaintiffs respectfully WHEREFOITE,

25

1. On tlfre FirstCause of Action:

L A

t7

2B RELIEIT FORINJUNCTIVE VERIFIIiD P]tsTl'tlor\ FORWRITOF MANDATEAND COMPLAINT 2l

Issuance of a r,vritof mandate, effectiveimrnediately, orderingthe Ciity Defbndants to: i. comply with the provisionsof the Etayden Law that remerin in ellbct; specifically,to provideprompt and necessary veterina.ry, careto injured animals,to treataninralshumanelyand kirn<jh', tcr make owner-relinquished animalsavailablefor adoptionthe ilay, alter impoundment, and to recordthe whereabouts of anirmals; rvh,o are sentfbr veterinarytreatmentanclcletails of suchtreatrnent; iii. comply with PalmSpringsMunicipral Code Section10.2t1.0:i0 b1,' holding all dogsand catsfor the minirnum holding perior.l of liivr:,
10
L1 I2 13

days,not includingthe day of impoundment, and refrain jionr euthanizing any animalsexceptthosre irremediablysufferi.rrg or thosethat are unweaned and impoundedw:ithouttheir mcrthersr, during that holding period; iii. cc'mplywith Palm Springs Municipal Code Section10.20.(13r.) by

T4

maintaininga completeand accuratr: lile on eachanimal inrpounded in the shelterbeginningon the day of impounLrCment; i'v. coase and desistimplementation of t.heirprogramof contro,llinrg potentiallyvicious dogsin a mannerthat is specificas to lbreed,, 2. On the Second Cause of Action:

15
L6 I1

1B
I9 20 2I

Issuance of an orderpreliminarily andpermanently enjoining theCit'y Deft:ndants from:

i. fa.ilingto provideprompt and necessral'y veterinarycare.tr:tre:zrt animalshumanelyand kindly, to make owner-relinquishe,rJ arLirnals availablefor adoptionthe day after irnpoundment, and to irecorcl thr: whereabouts of animalswho are sent for veterinary clre &llc[ the detailsof suchtreatment; ii. euthanizing any dogsor catsprior to the expirationof the fiLve: da.'y' holdingperiod,not includingthe dav of impoundment, prr:r;cr:ibed

22 23 24 25
26 21

2B VF,RIFIED PI]TITION ITOII WRIT'OF MANDATEAND COMPT,AINT I''OR INJIJNCTIVE REI,II]F

Palm Springs b1r MunicipalCodeSection10.20.030, exc,rlpt tlhor;e inremediablysuffering or thosethat are unweanedand inrpourr:Lded without their mothers; i i i . failing to maintaina completeand accurate file on eacha.nimial inrpounded in the shelter, as requiredby Palm SpringsMrrniciperl codeSection 10.20.030;
1V.

regulatingpotentiallydangerous or vicious dogs in a mannerthert i specilicas to breed.

3. On the First and Second Causes of Action: a. Issuance of an orderrequiringthat the City Defendants prove to rt.he
10
11

satir;f-action of the Court that they are in cornpliance with the Court's ordersin theseproceedings throughaudits,review of City trainirrgan,C operrations manuals, policies,procedures, monitoring,and,r'or o'uersight, suchother methodsas the Court deemsappropriate to ensureon61c,ing, corrLpliance with its orders; b. Issuance of an order that the Court will retainjurisdictionof this marttr:r to the satisfactio,n until the City Defendantshave demonstrated otf'the: of their practices;, CouLrt thartdevelopmentand implementation lp,olirr.iesi, and proceduresare in compliance with litate and local laws, ancl i.:n rn'iththe relief srantedherein. accordanr;e

I2
13
1

.l- q

15 16

t1 1B
19

20 2I 22
23 24

4. On theThird,Irourth andFifth Causes of Action: to immediatelv cease Friends a;ld Defendant a. Issuance of an orderdirectinq
or any other by internet,print advertising, desistfrom disseminating mearns statements that are falseand misleadingand intendedto soliciit Sihelt donations; from the public, or to otherwisepromotean imageo,[t]he that is false. and desistfi:ont of an order directingDefendantFriendsto cease b, Issuance r(rpresentations mal.ring to Plaintiffs and to the public atlarge,nejgligr:ntl'lr

25 26
a1

2B
RELIEIT IIORINJUNCTIVE AND COMPI-AINT FORWRI'I OF'MANDATE PI]TITIOIN VERIFIE,D
^ a LJ

or otherwise, despite havingno reasonable basisfor believings;ur;lr represortations to be true; c . Issuiance of an orderpreliminarilyandpennanentlv enjoiningDelfc:nclanrt Friendsfrom engaging in unlawful,unf;riror fraudulent business acts; withirr the meaningcontemplated by cal. []us. & prof. code r7,zrr)0:

d . Issuance 0f an ordergranting ,r.er,rrtles;, restitution ancldarnages to plaintifl:;; in an alnountt.obe determined at trial. 5. On thr:r SixthL Clause of Action: a' Issuance of an orderdirectingDefendant citv of palm Springs to proi,,.lcl* Plaintiffbrvith copiesof all records responsir/e to the requests ol.Janui,ry 28'2011 ancl January 31, 3011,regarding dogsand catsimpounde,d b)rthe, the Shelter, in accorclance with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(e), which;lrotribirrsr an agencyfrom providingrecords only in ele,ctronic format.

10
1i
1 )

13 14 15
I6

6. On all Causes of hction: a. Issuance olfattorder awarding to Plaintiffs c<lurt costs andreasornable attonaey fe,es. b. Such other relie{'as just andproper. thecourtdeems

1E I9
)l

Dated:

',q/,,(1 il

Respectfu ubrn itted, l.lys;

/

2I 22
---i---

23
a A L,7

Marla J'aus;cher

Attorney fcrrf'lainlifTs andPetitioners

2!) 2ti

2B

VERIFIED F'ETI'|ION F-)IiWF:I I OL. N,{ANDATE ANDCOMPLAINT F()]1 INJUNCI'IVE RELIEF

1 A !a

VI]RIFICATION 'fetttle, I, Daniel Plaintiffand Petitioner in this matter,havereadparagraphs 44 thr'ur 73 of the foregoirrg VerifiecliPelition for the Writ of Mandatet,mdComplaintfor Inirurctii'
Relief and am lamiliar w'ith its contents.,\ll facts alleged in the above mentioned paragrirphs o
1C l_1

this Petition an,:lComplaint are true of my own knowledge except us;to those matters rvhrcli iir. statedon infornrationand belLel'; and as to thosematters,I believe them to be true.

I declar,eunder penalty' of perjury under the laws of the State of California thir1. t,
13
1 A
1 !

foregoingis trur: ernd correct.

t5 L6
[i

Executed on

. California.

!9

2C

22

?.3
a A L 1

2.5 26

2B
VERIFIF,D F,ETITION F ( ] R W R I - I(.) F M A N D A T EA N D C O M P L A I N ' |F C I R IN . JUNCTIVE RELIEF

25

VERIFICATION
I.C ,arI ner Di l l a Lrd I,0 )n r behalfo1 rh 't ne An
nllm nal I,C ega al Defbr NS se lir Llllrd, Pla ll ntiff

th h iS sI n atter, Ia\'( lVe re:fd pi )ara. t6 o qraptrs , hii rg 7-i tt hrr rotrgh I 7( c f tthe l fbregoi

M La tndi al 1t :e ar n d Cc r omI C rlai in rt f< or r Injuncti. Ve rll e Re Fe l i e :f fa anc rd an

C 3X X XC :ept ta ast( o
o

a ano d P,:::tit.ioner tirJ 'v i ng n eri ilied Petitio n ffo c rr t.jhe !\,'rit r:,{

m familiar f r\ with rit s contt ents.A A lI l fa,r::ts a.lletelt,:{ ' t h ' e n 'agraphs in n the t abor,, mel 1er nrtic t :crlle r I :d pa trt o, f h is sP :titi e1 t i on onI a irnd r I Compl l al n 1 a lf'e true o f m y 'owl o n Ii:novvler:l,i:rl
i-0

t l Se thor 10s C tn tna' ltt( ers rS rvhichare : sta S ate ed o )n r inf n fbrma ation an rd b.'l lie f: and a s t otho t rse mertter,,. i be e lievr i ther t m tto o be l t ru( b r e.

!2
:.3 i1 i5 L6
I1

I declareunclerpenalty,of perjury' under the laws of th,l State of Californiir thill. th fbregoing is true iln,l correcl.

lExecuted on __11

t t

I b _,,__Jl_ Ctalifbrnia, _ ar Corati.

I

',i

CdrterDillard,/Director of Litieation, ,z\.nimal Legal Def'ensr: I,uncl

i9

:za
?-7

?-2

2:6

a a L U

V E R I F I I TP D E II l ' l O \ l . 0 R

()ITMA}']DATE AND I]OMPI-AINT FORIN.ILINC'TIVE R[t,IEIr

l6