Settlement Sets Stricter Rules for Animal Killing at Shelters
By Noah Barron
Daily Journal Staff Writer
LOS ANGELES - Animal advocates have scored a coup in a settlement that makes it tougher for Los
Angeles County's six shelters to euthanize cats and dogs, potentially saving the lives of thousands a year.
Under the settlement, the county cannot kill impounded animals before holding them for four days unless
they are terminally ill and must notify animal rescuers which cats and dogs are slated to be put down.
The agreement means a dozen animals in county shelters will not be killed each day, said Sheldon
Eisenberg of Eisenberg, Raizman, Thurston & Wong in Los Angeles, who represented No Kill Advocacy
Center.
On a given day, roughly 1,000 animals are held in the city's six shelters, according to county estimates.
The Los Angeles Times reported that about 56 are adopted per day, and 50 are put down.
The settlement resolved a year-old suit alleging that to eliminate overcrowding at the shelters the county
used a legal loophole to rapidly dispose of adoptable pets by deeming them "irremediably suffering." Cathy
Nguyen, Rebecca Arvizu, No Kill Advocacy Center v. County of Los Angeles, Department of Animal Care
and Control, Marcia Mayeda, Director, BS112581 (L.A. Super. Ct. filed Dec. 20, 2007).
The action alleged that the shelters "routinely kill healthy and adoptable animals" without holding them for
four days, as required by state law. The suit accused the county of using minor illnesses, such as colds, as
a criteria to kill and thus avoid paying for veterinary care and shelter space.
The settlement sharply defines the kill criteria now as "an animal with a medical condition who has a poor
or grave prognosis for being able to live without severe, unremitting pain despite necessary veterinary
care."
Those conditions include kidney failure, distemper, blood loss, head trauma and unmanageable pain.
The agreement was a victory for self-proclaimed animal rescuers Cathy Nyugen of Orange County and
Rebecca Arvizu of Los Angeles, along with the No Kill Advocacy Center in Oakland, who sued the county's
Department of Animal Care and Control.
Nathan Winograd, a lawyer and director of the No Kill Advocacy Center, applauded the stronger wording.
"Now we've got a very rigorous definition," he said. "We can hold them to accountability."
The agreement was reached Oct. 16, and signed by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C.
Chalfant on Oct. 21.
County counsel Diane Reagan, who handled the case, wrote in an e-mail that the shelters had never
operated outside the law. She said the county is appreciative of the added clarity the settlement provides
but hopes dispute resolution, rather than lawsuits that cost taxpayers money, will be used to solve any
Print Daily Journal Online Article Page 1 of 2
http://www.dailyjournal.com/newswire/components/printArticle.cfm?sid=435110100&tk... 10/24/2008
future problems.
"Our limited resources are better used in caring for animals than in litigation," Reagan said.
Lawyer Joseph Heath at Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar in Los Angeles, who also represented the
county, said the agreement is "a pretty straightforward deal," but declined to comment further.
In 2007, plaintiff Nguyen claimed she blew the whistle on the shelters' illegal killing policy and that the
county retaliated by blocking her from adopting any animals to prevent their deaths, a practice she
regularly engaged in. The settlement restores her right to adopt, Eisenberg said.
In a November 2007 letter sent to the director of the animal control agency, Marcia Mayeda, Eisenberg and
his legal team accused the shelters of killing animals without "engaging in reasonable efforts to identify the
animals' owners" and killing tame cats wrongly classified as feral.
In an interview, Eisenberg said that for the next two years, the county will be required to turn over records
of all the animals it euthanizes.
"Up to this point, their records were so bad," he said.
Mayeda could not be reached for comment.
The mediator in the agreement, David B. Casselman of Wasserman, Comden & Casselman in Los
Angeles, said that though fewer animals will be killed under the tighter euthanasia policy, the overcrowding
problems at local shelters will not worsen.
"What we've done is create a strong connection between the shelters and animal rescue, so when there's
an animal with a ticking clock, [the shelter] will notify the rescue [people] so the dog or cat can be adopted,"
Casselman said.
Casselman mediated the agreement because he is an animal advocate himself, he said. He founded a
wildlife sanctuary in Cambodia and has sued the Los Angeles Zoo over treatment of elephants. Robert
Culp, Aaron Leider v. John Lewis, City of Los Angeles, BC375234 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 2, 2007).
Reagan said that Casselman is a well-respected animal advocate who could bridge the gaps between the
two parties. He offered his mediation services free, she said.
Casselman said the settlement shows how government and citizens can work together to save lost and
frightened dogs and cats.
"It reflects well on all of the litigants, who deserve our thanks," Casselman said. "As Gandhi famously said,
'We can judge the moral progress of a nation by the way it treats its animals.'"
This article appears on Page 1 of the Verdicts and Settlements
**********
© 2008 Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved.
Print Daily Journal Online Article Page 2 of 2
Settlement Sets Stricter Rules for Animal Killing at Shelters
By Noah Barron
Daily Journal Staff Writer
LOS ANGELES - Animal advocates have scored a coup in a settlement that makes it tougher for Los
Angeles County's six shelters to euthanize cats and dogs, potentially saving the lives of thousands a year.
Under the settlement, the county cannot kill impounded animals before holding them for four days unless
they are terminally ill and must notify animal rescuers which cats and dogs are slated to be put down.
The agreement means a dozen animals in county shelters will not be killed each day, said Sheldon
Eisenberg of Eisenberg, Raizman, Thurston & Wong in Los Angeles, who represented No Kill Advocacy
Center.
On a given day, roughly 1,000 animals are held in the city's six shelters, according to county estimates.
The Los Angeles Times reported that about 56 are adopted per day, and 50 are put down.
The settlement resolved a year-old suit alleging that to eliminate overcrowding at the shelters the county
used a legal loophole to rapidly dispose of adoptable pets by deeming them "irremediably suffering." Cathy
Nguyen, Rebecca Arvizu, No Kill Advocacy Center v. County of Los Angeles, Department of Animal Care
and Control, Marcia Mayeda, Director, BS112581 (L.A. Super. Ct. filed Dec. 20, 2007).
The action alleged that the shelters "routinely kill healthy and adoptable animals" without holding them for
four days, as required by state law. The suit accused the county of using minor illnesses, such as colds, as
a criteria to kill and thus avoid paying for veterinary care and shelter space.
The settlement sharply defines the kill criteria now as "an animal with a medical condition who has a poor
or grave prognosis for being able to live without severe, unremitting pain despite necessary veterinary
care."
Those conditions include kidney failure, distemper, blood loss, head trauma and unmanageable pain.
The agreement was a victory for self-proclaimed animal rescuers Cathy Nyugen of Orange County and
Rebecca Arvizu of Los Angeles, along with the No Kill Advocacy Center in Oakland, who sued the county's
Department of Animal Care and Control.
Nathan Winograd, a lawyer and director of the No Kill Advocacy Center, applauded the stronger wording.
"Now we've got a very rigorous definition," he said. "We can hold them to accountability."
The agreement was reached Oct. 16, and signed by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C.
Chalfant on Oct. 21.
County counsel Diane Reagan, who handled the case, wrote in an e-mail that the shelters had never
operated outside the law. She said the county is appreciative of the added clarity the settlement provides
but hopes dispute resolution, rather than lawsuits that cost taxpayers money, will be used to solve any
Print Daily Journal Online Article Page 1 of 2
http://www.dailyjournal.com/newswire/components/printArticle.cfm?sid=435110100&tk... 10/24/2008
future problems.
"Our limited resources are better used in caring for animals than in litigation," Reagan said.
Lawyer Joseph Heath at Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar in Los Angeles, who also represented the
county, said the agreement is "a pretty straightforward deal," but declined to comment further.
In 2007, plaintiff Nguyen claimed she blew the whistle on the shelters' illegal killing policy and that the
county retaliated by blocking her from adopting any animals to prevent their deaths, a practice she
regularly engaged in. The settlement restores her right to adopt, Eisenberg said.
In a November 2007 letter sent to the director of the animal control agency, Marcia Mayeda, Eisenberg and
his legal team accused the shelters of killing animals without "engaging in reasonable efforts to identify the
animals' owners" and killing tame cats wrongly classified as feral.
In an interview, Eisenberg said that for the next two years, the county will be required to turn over records
of all the animals it euthanizes.
"Up to this point, their records were so bad," he said.
Mayeda could not be reached for comment.
The mediator in the agreement, David B. Casselman of Wasserman, Comden & Casselman in Los
Angeles, said that though fewer animals will be killed under the tighter euthanasia policy, the overcrowding
problems at local shelters will not worsen.
"What we've done is create a strong connection between the shelters and animal rescue, so when there's
an animal with a ticking clock, [the shelter] will notify the rescue [people] so the dog or cat can be adopted,"
Casselman said.
Casselman mediated the agreement because he is an animal advocate himself, he said. He founded a
wildlife sanctuary in Cambodia and has sued the Los Angeles Zoo over treatment of elephants. Robert
Culp, Aaron Leider v. John Lewis, City of Los Angeles, BC375234 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 2, 2007).
Reagan said that Casselman is a well-respected animal advocate who could bridge the gaps between the
two parties. He offered his mediation services free, she said.
Casselman said the settlement shows how government and citizens can work together to save lost and
frightened dogs and cats.
"It reflects well on all of the litigants, who deserve our thanks," Casselman said. "As Gandhi famously said,
'We can judge the moral progress of a nation by the way it treats its animals.'"
This article appears on Page 1 of the Verdicts and Settlements
**********
© 2008 Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved.
Print Daily Journal Online Article Page 2 of 2
Settlement Sets Stricter Rules for Animal Killing at Shelters
By Noah Barron
Daily Journal Staff Writer
LOS ANGELES - Animal advocates have scored a coup in a settlement that makes it tougher for Los
Angeles County's six shelters to euthanize cats and dogs, potentially saving the lives of thousands a year.
Under the settlement, the county cannot kill impounded animals before holding them for four days unless
they are terminally ill and must notify animal rescuers which cats and dogs are slated to be put down.
The agreement means a dozen animals in county shelters will not be killed each day, said Sheldon
Eisenberg of Eisenberg, Raizman, Thurston & Wong in Los Angeles, who represented No Kill Advocacy
Center.
On a given day, roughly 1,000 animals are held in the city's six shelters, according to county estimates.
The Los Angeles Times reported that about 56 are adopted per day, and 50 are put down.
The settlement resolved a year-old suit alleging that to eliminate overcrowding at the shelters the county
used a legal loophole to rapidly dispose of adoptable pets by deeming them "irremediably suffering." Cathy
Nguyen, Rebecca Arvizu, No Kill Advocacy Center v. County of Los Angeles, Department of Animal Care
and Control, Marcia Mayeda, Director, BS112581 (L.A. Super. Ct. filed Dec. 20, 2007).
The action alleged that the shelters "routinely kill healthy and adoptable animals" without holding them for
four days, as required by state law. The suit accused the county of using minor illnesses, such as colds, as
a criteria to kill and thus avoid paying for veterinary care and shelter space.
The settlement sharply defines the kill criteria now as "an animal with a medical condition who has a poor
or grave prognosis for being able to live without severe, unremitting pain despite necessary veterinary
care."
Those conditions include kidney failure, distemper, blood loss, head trauma and unmanageable pain.
The agreement was a victory for self-proclaimed animal rescuers Cathy Nyugen of Orange County and
Rebecca Arvizu of Los Angeles, along with the No Kill Advocacy Center in Oakland, who sued the county's
Department of Animal Care and Control.
Nathan Winograd, a lawyer and director of the No Kill Advocacy Center, applauded the stronger wording.
"Now we've got a very rigorous definition," he said. "We can hold them to accountability."
The agreement was reached Oct. 16, and signed by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C.
Chalfant on Oct. 21.
County counsel Diane Reagan, who handled the case, wrote in an e-mail that the shelters had never
operated outside the law. She said the county is appreciative of the added clarity the settlement provides
but hopes dispute resolution, rather than lawsuits that cost taxpayers money, will be used to solve any
Print Daily Journal Online Article Page 1 of 2
http://www.dailyjournal.com/newswire/components/printArticle.cfm?sid=435110100&tk... 10/24/2008
future problems.
"Our limited resources are better used in caring for animals than in litigation," Reagan said.
Lawyer Joseph Heath at Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar in Los Angeles, who also represented the
county, said the agreement is "a pretty straightforward deal," but declined to comment further.
In 2007, plaintiff Nguyen claimed she blew the whistle on the shelters' illegal killing policy and that the
county retaliated by blocking her from adopting any animals to prevent their deaths, a practice she
regularly engaged in. The settlement restores her right to adopt, Eisenberg said.
In a November 2007 letter sent to the director of the animal control agency, Marcia Mayeda, Eisenberg and
his legal team accused the shelters of killing animals without "engaging in reasonable efforts to identify the
animals' owners" and killing tame cats wrongly classified as feral.
In an interview, Eisenberg said that for the next two years, the county will be required to turn over records
of all the animals it euthanizes.
"Up to this point, their records were so bad," he said.
Mayeda could not be reached for comment.
The mediator in the agreement, David B. Casselman of Wasserman, Comden & Casselman in Los
Angeles, said that though fewer animals will be killed under the tighter euthanasia policy, the overcrowding
problems at local shelters will not worsen.
"What we've done is create a strong connection between the shelters and animal rescue, so when there's
an animal with a ticking clock, [the shelter] will notify the rescue [people] so the dog or cat can be adopted,"
Casselman said.
Casselman mediated the agreement because he is an animal advocate himself, he said. He founded a
wildlife sanctuary in Cambodia and has sued the Los Angeles Zoo over treatment of elephants. Robert
Culp, Aaron Leider v. John Lewis, City of Los Angeles, BC375234 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 2, 2007).
Reagan said that Casselman is a well-respected animal advocate who could bridge the gaps between the
two parties. He offered his mediation services free, she said.
Casselman said the settlement shows how government and citizens can work together to save lost and
frightened dogs and cats.
"It reflects well on all of the litigants, who deserve our thanks," Casselman said. "As Gandhi famously said,
'We can judge the moral progress of a nation by the way it treats its animals.'"
This article appears on Page 1 of the Verdicts and Settlements
**********
© 2008 Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved.
Print Daily Journal Online Article Page 2 of 2
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/DJStip.pdf