11 Temmuz 2012 Çarşamba
10 Temmuz 2012 Salı
9 Temmuz 2012 Pazartesi
It's the Little Things, For Instance...
To contact us Click HERE
This week my assigned reading includes, but is certainly not limited to:
The Book of Job
Faulkner's "Light in August"
Irigaray's "Women on the Market", "When the Goods Get Together", "Women, Money, and the Sacred", "Divine Women" & "On the Maternal Order"
Kant's "On the Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in a Theodicy"
AND just for fun (okay, really for my Irigaray final paper) I'm gong to start Morny Joy's new book "Divine Love: Luce Irigaray, Women, Gender and Religion" It's brand, spanking new. The copy I have was loaned to me from my professor who had not yet unwrapped it.
Add to that:
~ the unholy amount of work Craig has done to put together and organize new dressers, bookshelves, and a desk
~ being married to Craigory
~ my snuggly dogs
~ beautiful fall weather
~ coffee
I'm pretty sure it all adds up to me having pretty much the best life ever.
P.S. Last night as I was driving home, I pulled up next to a minivan full of 50ish white men in suits at a red light on McCarter Highway in Newark. I was singing along to Amanda Palmer with my window down and as I turned to see them just happened to caterwaul, "The orange man's got you!" They rolled up their windows and ran the red light almost immediately.
The Book of Job
Faulkner's "Light in August"
Irigaray's "Women on the Market", "When the Goods Get Together", "Women, Money, and the Sacred", "Divine Women" & "On the Maternal Order"
Kant's "On the Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in a Theodicy"
AND just for fun (okay, really for my Irigaray final paper) I'm gong to start Morny Joy's new book "Divine Love: Luce Irigaray, Women, Gender and Religion" It's brand, spanking new. The copy I have was loaned to me from my professor who had not yet unwrapped it.
Add to that:
~ the unholy amount of work Craig has done to put together and organize new dressers, bookshelves, and a desk
~ being married to Craigory
~ my snuggly dogs
~ beautiful fall weather
~ coffee
I'm pretty sure it all adds up to me having pretty much the best life ever.
P.S. Last night as I was driving home, I pulled up next to a minivan full of 50ish white men in suits at a red light on McCarter Highway in Newark. I was singing along to Amanda Palmer with my window down and as I turned to see them just happened to caterwaul, "The orange man's got you!" They rolled up their windows and ran the red light almost immediately.
[art] Terry Moore's Comic Art Tumblr
To contact us Click HERE
2845.Now that I've gotten back into Strangers In Paradise, I suppose I'll start being obsessive about it. I'm ADD about the things I like, but it's kind of telescoped-out … I'll get into something, make an earnest attempt to get every single bit of interesting information out of something, endeavor to leave it like a dry husk, then move on.
I don't know why I do this. I long ago learned not to question it.
So, in the opening gambit to obsess on the astounding work of Terry Moore, an artist who's pencil I could but merely hope to borrow, if that, here's a bit of a delight: TerryMooreArt, his tumblr blog. What sorts of things will you find there? Why…
Francine:
Katchoo:
… and David
… amongst other things. Like Supergirl riding a meteor and drinking a Coke.
It's cool stuff. It's http://terrymooreart.tumblr.com/.
I don't know why I do this. I long ago learned not to question it.
So, in the opening gambit to obsess on the astounding work of Terry Moore, an artist who's pencil I could but merely hope to borrow, if that, here's a bit of a delight: TerryMooreArt, his tumblr blog. What sorts of things will you find there? Why…
Francine:
Katchoo:
… and David
… amongst other things. Like Supergirl riding a meteor and drinking a Coke.
It's cool stuff. It's http://terrymooreart.tumblr.com/.
[logo] The Biggest Bimbo You've Never Heard Of
To contact us Click HERE
2846.One of the niftiest and funnest things in language as well as design is when a foreign firm or company translates itself into American English terms without changing the name that made them famous, even if that name picks up baggage in the translation.
For example.
If I asked you, without Googling, now, what the largest bakery in America would be, what would you say?
Hostess?
Guess again … Bimbo.
Via Kristi Turnquist's yfrog stream
Portland newsie Kristi Turnquist peeped this on the back of a delivery truck, and it struck her as funny, presumably because the word bimbo has a historic association with women of a certain perceived character.
The real funny thing about it, though, is that the word Bimbo … pronounced in its native Spanish, "BEEM-bo" rather than the American English "BIM-bo", means nothing in that native tongue. Research indicates its a made-up word. In Latin America, however, it's a market titan, and in some countries, it's pretty much a synonym for bread itself.
Like many companies these days, it's a multinational; it has a huge subsidiary in the USA called Bimbo Bakeries USA which, during the last decade, has merged its way into becoming the single largest baked goods producer in the nation.
Had a Boboli pizza crust? Oroweat bread? Thomas' English Muffin? You're having a Bimbo for lunch, bucko.
Now, that's one big Bimbo.
For example.
If I asked you, without Googling, now, what the largest bakery in America would be, what would you say?
Hostess?
Guess again … Bimbo.
Via Kristi Turnquist's yfrog streamPortland newsie Kristi Turnquist peeped this on the back of a delivery truck, and it struck her as funny, presumably because the word bimbo has a historic association with women of a certain perceived character.
The real funny thing about it, though, is that the word Bimbo … pronounced in its native Spanish, "BEEM-bo" rather than the American English "BIM-bo", means nothing in that native tongue. Research indicates its a made-up word. In Latin America, however, it's a market titan, and in some countries, it's pretty much a synonym for bread itself.
Like many companies these days, it's a multinational; it has a huge subsidiary in the USA called Bimbo Bakeries USA which, during the last decade, has merged its way into becoming the single largest baked goods producer in the nation.
Had a Boboli pizza crust? Oroweat bread? Thomas' English Muffin? You're having a Bimbo for lunch, bucko.
Now, that's one big Bimbo.
[web_design] OregonLive Redesign: Say Hello To My Prelo-Slab Friend
To contact us Click HERE
2847.In case you've somehow, during the past day, not dialled-up OregonLive, the The Oregonian-ish website run by Advance Publications, The Big O's parent, you're in for a surprise, boy-o.
If you've sworn off OLive (as some I know have), here's what you're missing:
A cleaner, leaner design. A big, meaty guts-column of real-time-updated stories, theme selectable by a drop-down (Top Stories/News/Sports/Entertainment/Opinion). A buff-colored, spacious header that extrudes into the page as you scroll down.
Departments? They got'em:
Each one of those blue buttons open a dialog that allows you to select criteria, you click a search-button, and it's off to the races. This is all below the "fold" in the right-side column. Below this, you'll find a most read/most commented block, and at the footer, direct links to direct sections.
One of the biggest complaints about OLive over the years it's existed is its clutteredness. It was not the most useful of interfaces, and unless you knew what you were looking for, you could indeed get lost while looking for what you were (or weren't finding). The most irritating thing to me was the center, where sports stories were thrown together in a mixed-hierarchy goulash. While the sections were laid out across the top, it was a matter of guessing to see to it that you picked the right one to drill down into.
This is, indeed a better design. Although the menus that would explode into the screen when you merely moused over the section titles along the top were a little tough to get use to … well, all interfaces have a learning curve. This one's mercifully short. I already, after just a few minutes, know where I want to go to get what I want to know. The clean, clear, and organized look of the site is a refreshing change from the gallimaufry chaos of the original OLive.
The most striking feature of the redesign, and the one that leaps right out (and almost grabs you by the throat), is that heavy, authoritative font. It's called Prelo-slab, you can find some here, and boy is it an aggressive look in the application. It almost dares you not to click it. Actually, in the ways it's being used, it comes off as a little too heavy; I note, at the vendors page, there's maybe another weight I'd use for those headlines.
But you know what? I like the redesign.
Although, biggest flaw? For a few minutes I thought I'd stumbled into some big ol' Reddit.
If you've sworn off OLive (as some I know have), here's what you're missing:
A cleaner, leaner design. A big, meaty guts-column of real-time-updated stories, theme selectable by a drop-down (Top Stories/News/Sports/Entertainment/Opinion). A buff-colored, spacious header that extrudes into the page as you scroll down.
Departments? They got'em:
Each one of those blue buttons open a dialog that allows you to select criteria, you click a search-button, and it's off to the races. This is all below the "fold" in the right-side column. Below this, you'll find a most read/most commented block, and at the footer, direct links to direct sections.
One of the biggest complaints about OLive over the years it's existed is its clutteredness. It was not the most useful of interfaces, and unless you knew what you were looking for, you could indeed get lost while looking for what you were (or weren't finding). The most irritating thing to me was the center, where sports stories were thrown together in a mixed-hierarchy goulash. While the sections were laid out across the top, it was a matter of guessing to see to it that you picked the right one to drill down into.
This is, indeed a better design. Although the menus that would explode into the screen when you merely moused over the section titles along the top were a little tough to get use to … well, all interfaces have a learning curve. This one's mercifully short. I already, after just a few minutes, know where I want to go to get what I want to know. The clean, clear, and organized look of the site is a refreshing change from the gallimaufry chaos of the original OLive.
The most striking feature of the redesign, and the one that leaps right out (and almost grabs you by the throat), is that heavy, authoritative font. It's called Prelo-slab, you can find some here, and boy is it an aggressive look in the application. It almost dares you not to click it. Actually, in the ways it's being used, it comes off as a little too heavy; I note, at the vendors page, there's maybe another weight I'd use for those headlines.
But you know what? I like the redesign.
Although, biggest flaw? For a few minutes I thought I'd stumbled into some big ol' Reddit.
[liff] Enzo's Daddy Likes My Graphic
To contact us Click HERE
2851.A while back, I designed a little graphic, inspired by Fairey, that honored the head of our favorite weather team (over on KGW), because one day he was just so busy explaining it all … the KGW weather team seems not just passionate but positively geeky over weather and science.
This was it:
Since I follow Zaffino on Twittah, I noticed that he'd changed his avatar pic latterly, and it kind of made my day:
I am so thrilled about this. Now, I thanked him for the honor and then Klouted him with +K's a few times, and he's not responded, but I'm thinking all that might be a little stalker-y, so I'm not going to stress over it. It's obvious where it came from and it's cool, because this is kinda one of the hopes I had for it.
I'm so proud …
This was it:
Since I follow Zaffino on Twittah, I noticed that he'd changed his avatar pic latterly, and it kind of made my day:
I am so thrilled about this. Now, I thanked him for the honor and then Klouted him with +K's a few times, and he's not responded, but I'm thinking all that might be a little stalker-y, so I'm not going to stress over it. It's obvious where it came from and it's cool, because this is kinda one of the hopes I had for it.
I'm so proud …
8 Temmuz 2012 Pazar
A Pit Bull That Was Killed And Lost It's Day In Court Named Lucy
To contact us Click HERE
HEDBERG v. WARD
DESIREE HEDBERG, et. al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
BETH WARD, Defendant and Respondent.
No. H036406.
Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District.
Filed March 26, 2012.
ELIA, J.
In this appeal plaintiffs Desiree Hedberg and Ian Young challenge a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Beth Ward in their action for damages arising from the impoundment and euthanasia of their dog by the Humane Society of Silicon Valley. Plaintiffs contend that there were triable issues of fact in their claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that they were entitled to punitive damages arising from Ward's conduct. We find no error in the superior court's ruling and accordingly must affirm the judgment.
Background1
The subject of this litigation was plaintiffs' dog, a "pit bull" named Lucy. On July 30, 2007, an animal control officer from the City of Sunnyvale (City) took Lucy from her home to a shelter at the Humane Society Silicon Valley (Humane Society) and placed her in a 10-day "bite quarantine" as directed by the City's Animal Control Unit. Because the purpose of the quarantine period is to observe the animal for signs of rabies, a quarantined animal is required to stay in its kennel and no visitors are allowed during those 10 days.
Defendant Beth Ward, a vice-president at the Humane Society, was responsible for all aspects of animal and customer care. According to her declaration, Lucy was fed, given water, and cleaned every day by animal care technicians during the quarantine period. After that, she was given an "enrichment plan" consisting of "toys, bedding, interaction with people, and a comfortable environment . . . in addition to the basic necessities, such as food, water, exercise, and veterinary care." The Humane Society staff also provided socialization by interacting with her daily or near daily, and they arranged for twice weekly visits from plaintiffs. Ward knew of no incident in which Lucy was injured during her confinement at the Humane Society.
On September 12, 2007, after a hearing, the superior court determined that Lucy was a "vicious" animal as defined in Sunnyvale Ordinance No. 6.04.1602 "in that, without provocation, she inflicted bites both on a human and on domestic animals while on public property and, without provocation, chased and approached a human and domestic animals on a sidewalk in a threatening manner with [an] apparent attitude of attack and, in fact, killed one of those animals, a dog named `Bobbi.' "The court rejected plaintiffs' attempts to characterize the killing of Bobbi as "merely `discipline' or `corrective behavior,' "and it noted that "this neither defeats a finding of `vicious animal' nor provides reassurance as to Lucy's potential future behavior." The court therefore ordered Lucy destroyed.
Plaintiffs petitioned this court for a stay and a writ of supersedeas, asserting a violation of their due process rights. This court denied the petition without prejudice to its refiling in the appellate division of the superior court. The appellate division denied plaintiffs' ensuing petition, however, and on December 20, 2007, this court denied plaintiffs' final petition for a writ of mandate and request for stay.
While these proceedings were pending, Ward received more than 200 e-mail messages from all over the country and even outside the United States, all protesting the court's order. On December 18, 2007, plaintiffs themselves told Ward that the Humane Society should not follow the order; they said that they were angry and that there would be large protests at the Humane Society if it followed the court's order. Ward had assured plaintiffs that two of Lucy's caretakers, with whom she had become friendly, would attend the euthanasia. Plaintiffs were not permitted to be present during the procedure, however, because their attorney had threatened "ramifications, including lawsuits, if the Humane Society followed the Court's order."
On December 19, 2007, a representative of the city's Animal Control Unit delivered a letter to Ward requesting that the superior court's order be carried out by euthanizing Lucy. One of the plaintiffs had told Ward, however, that the appellate court had granted a stay. Accordingly, the Humane Society did not carry out the euthanasia request that day. On December 20, however, the Animal Control Unit made another euthanasia request, this time informing the Humane Society that a stay had been denied on December 18, 2007.
On December 20, 2007, plaintiffs were notified that the euthanasia was to take place and that they would be allowed one more visit with Lucy. Based on both plaintiffs' statements that a protest had been planned, Ward arranged for the police to conduct a civil standby during the euthanasia.
At the time of their one-hour private visit, plaintiff Hedberg repeatedly requested that the Humane Society disregard the court order, but if it had to occur, then she and Young wanted to be present during the euthanasia. Ward told plaintiffs that the Humane Society had no choice but to comply with the court order and that they would not be allowed to be present during the procedure. Lucy was euthanized that day, after plaintiffs' last visit. Shortly thereafter their attorney was notified that this court had denied plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate and request for a stay.
Plaintiffs initiated this action in January 2009, naming the County of Santa Clara, the City's Animal Control Unit; Michelle Morgan, the Animal Control officer who had seized Lucy; and Ward. The superior court sustained the City's and Morgan's demurrer to each cause of action as barred by immunity. The court also sustained Ward's demurrer without leave to amend as to five of the nine causes of action. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint repleading all of the same causes of action, this time naming only the County of Santa Clara and Ward. The court struck the duplicated causes of action, again without leave to amend, leaving only four claims: (1) negligence in the care of Lucy during the impoundment; (2) negligence in Lucy's care and in "not allowing [Lucy] to see the Plaintiffs and then killing her alone on a cold table"; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) conduct entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294.
On August 26, 2010, Ward moved for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication of these four causes of action. Ward generally asserted that none of plaintiffs' claims had merit because the dog had not been mistreated; she did not personally make the decision to euthanize Lucy or exclude plaintiffs from the procedure; and she neither acted outrageously nor intended to cause plaintiffs emotional distress. As to the claim for punitive damages, Ward stated that no such cause of action existed and that there was no factual basis for such an award in any event.
In their opposition plaintiffs asserted that Ward had a "custom and policy" of discriminating against "pit bull" dogs and their owners. They further attempted to show triable issues of fact regarding the adequacy of Lucy's care, Ward's exclusion of them from the euthanasia procedure, the decision to euthanize Lucy while a court stay was pending, and Ward's "horrific" conduct toward them. The superior court, however, rejected plaintiffs' arguments and granted summary judgment on November 19, 2010. The order was based on the court's conclusions that (1) any challenge to the lawfulness of the seizure and euthanasia was barred by collateral estoppel, (2) Ward had no duty to allow plaintiffs to attend the euthanasia; (3) it was not Ward's decision to exclude plaintiffs from the procedure, (4) there was no evidence of inadequate care of Lucy, and (5) plaintiffs would not be able to prove extreme and outrageous conduct. The court also noted the "well settled" law that a claim for punitive damages is a remedy, not a cause of action.
Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on December 20, 2010. Because judgment was not entered until December 27, 2010, the notice was clearly premature. Nevertheless, because a judgment was subsequently filed, we will exercise our discretion to construe the premature notice of appeal as pertaining to the December 27, 2010 judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(d)(2).)
Discussion
1. Standard of Review
Plaintiffs manifest a lack of understanding of the scope and standard of appellate review. Under the heading "Statement of Appealability" they insert the following hedged suggestion: "Review is either de novo or abuse of discretion and either way the issue is one of law." They repeat this statement under the heading "Standard of Review" and then immediately borrow an argument from some other case, proclaiming that "[t]he ruling barring the presentation of the veterinarian bills is reviewed for an abuse of discretion," followed by a discussion of this standard in light of "the trial court's in limine ruling." That ruling was apparently made by a female trial judge, in a "tort action over the intentional or negligent shooting of a pet." In the event that plaintiffs' brief reflects attorney ignorance rather than carelessness or laziness, we recite the long-established principles governing review of this frequently used procedural device, the summary judgment.
"The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 (Aguilar).) Summary judgment is appropriate "if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) A defendant who moves for summary judgment bears the initial burden to show that the action has no merit—that is, for each cause of action one or more elements "cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (o), (p)(2); Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850; Truong v. Glasser (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 102, 109.) When the burden of proof at trial will be on the plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence, the moving defendant "must present evidence that would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding that it was more likely than not that the material fact was true [citation], or the defendant must establish that an element of the claim cannot be established, by presenting evidence that the plaintiff `does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence'" to support a necessary element of the cause of action. (Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1003, quoting Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854; Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.)
If the moving defendant makes a prima facie showing that justifies a judgment in that defendant's favor, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing that there exists a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.) "The plaintiff . . . may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists, but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action . . . ." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)
On appeal, we conduct a de novo review of the record to "determine with respect to each cause of action whether the defendant seeking summary judgment has conclusively negated a necessary element of the plaintiff's case, or has demonstrated that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial, such that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 334; Daly v. Yessne (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 52, 58.) We apply the same procedure used by the trial court: We examine the pleadings to ascertain the elements of the plaintiff's claim; the moving papers to determine whether the defendant has established facts justifying judgment in its favor; and, if the defendant did meet this burden, plaintiff's opposition to decide whether he or she has demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 84-85; Varni Bros. Corp. v. Wine World, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 880, 887.) "We need not defer to the trial court and are not bound by the reasons for the summary judgment ruling; we review the ruling of the trial court, not its rationale." (Knapp v. Doherty, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 85.)
2. Plaintiffs' Complaint
Because it is the pleadings that define the issues to be resolved in a summary judgment proceeding, we first look to the allegations of plaintiffs' first amended complaint. The superior court having previously sustained Ward's demurrer without leave to amend, only four causes of action remain in this proceeding: the fifth, sixth, seventh, and ninth causes of action.
The fifth cause of action was for negligence. To prevail on this theory plaintiffs would have had to prove "each of the well-known elements of any negligence cause of action, viz., duty, breach of duty, proximate cause and damages." (Artiglio v. Corning Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 604, 614; Conroy v. Regents of University of Cal. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1250.) The parties focused solely on the first and second elements, the nature of the duty and whether any breach occurred.
Citing Civil Code section 1834 and Food and Agricultural Code section 31107,3 plaintiffs alleged that defendants had failed to act in accordance with the standard of care in hiring and supervising employees in the care and protection of impounded animals. They further asserted that defendants had "b[r]eached their duty to `LUCY' and her owners by seizing her without consent or legal authority, preventing her family from seeing her while impounded, and then killing her without legal cause or authority and violated Cal.Government Code §815.2(a).4 Additionally, the Court ruling allegedly `legalizing' the death of Lucy was erroneous and based on falsehoods and a mistake of law and fact."
The sixth cause of action was also for negligence: defendants had a duty to "treat `LUCY' kindly, to provide proper and necessary medical treatment, love and affection, and not to kill her." They also "knew or should have known that not allowing `LUCY' to see the Plaintiffs and then killing her alone on a cold table would create emotional and psychological injuries to Plaintiffs." Plaintiffs also repeated their allegation that "the Court ruling allegedly `legalizing' the death of Lucy was erroneous and based on falsehoods and a mistake of law and fact."
In the seventh cause of action plaintiffs alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress. To recover for this tort a plaintiff must prove three elements: "(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) the plaintiff's injuries were actually and proximately caused by the defendant's outrageous conduct." (Cochran v. Cochran (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 488, 494.)
Plaintiffs' claim was based on defendants' having seized Lucy without consent, and by "willfully, intentionally, and with malice" preventing plaintiffs "from visiting her and being with her when she [w]as killed without consent or legal authority." Defendants "refused to allow Plaintiffs to be with her [sic] beloved `LUCY' while she was being killed, [and] defendants made fun of Plaintiffs and taunted them in front of a room full of other people, including several police officers, so as to cause severe emotional distress to plaintiffs." Defendants "knew or should have known that willfully seizing, without legal justification or evidence, and then killing a family pet would panic [sic] and terrify persons present," and that this "outrageous" conduct "would cause the Plaintiffs severe emotional distress and mental anguish."
The ninth cause of action contained only allegations that they were entitled to punitive damages under Civil Code sections 3294 and 3340, because defendants had acted willfully and maliciously, "or by no less than by gross negligence," "or by no less than a reckless disregard" for Lucy's life, plaintiffs' property, or their "emotional tranquility." Plaintiffs once again claimed that the court's ruling authorizing Lucy's euthanasia was "erroneous and based on falsehoods and a mistake of law and fact."
3. Ward's Showing and Plaintiffs' Response
Ward's summary judgment motion was aimed at establishing that (1) Lucy had not been mistreated during her impoundment, (2) it was not Ward's decision to exclude plaintiffs from Lucy's euthanasia, and (3) Ward neither engaged in outrageous conduct nor intended to cause plaintiffs distress. Ward further contended that the claim of punitive damages lacked merit because there was no such cause of action, and there was no conduct justifying such an award in any event.
In support of the motion Ward offered the following as undisputed facts. First, she described the fifth cause of action as one based on "negligence in the treatment of Lucy, in the hiring and supervision of employees who cared for Lucy, and in euthanizing Lucy." Plaintiffs did not dispute this statement. Ward then stated, citing her declaration, that she had never injured Lucy, nor was she aware of any injury by a Humane Society employee. She noted the enrichment plan that had provided Lucy with "not only the necessities, such as food, water, exercise, and veterinary care, but toys and comfortable bedding." Plaintiffs did dispute this statement, citing only Hedberg's deposition, and asserted "no knowledge" of any enrichment plan. This response was manifestly inadequate to show a triable issue: In her deposition Hedberg only vaguely referred to Lucy's initial confinement without exercise and could not remember who had told her about this. The court properly sustained Ward's hearsay objection to Hedberg's statement that some "unidentified" person told her about the lack of exercise.5 Ward also named two employees who were primarily responsible for Lucy's care under the enrichment plan and with whom Lucy had developed a friendly relationship. Plaintiffs conceded the competency of these two employees. In short, plaintiffs' unawareness of the enrichment plan fell far short of rebutting Ward's statement of fact that such a plan was developed and implemented for Lucy.
Ward's assertion that Lucy received veterinary care was supported by not only her own declaration but a declaration from the veterinarian who had treated Lucy, and who expressed the opinion that the Humane Society and Ward were not negligent in providing the dog's care. Plaintiffs' opposition to the adequacy of Lucy's veterinary care was based on no expert evidence, but only Hedberg's own observation of what she believed to be an eye infection.6
In response to Ward's statement that she had never injured Lucy, plaintiffs further asserted that Ward "made the decision to kill Lucy while there was a pending stay, treated her unkindly, and prevented her human parents from visiting her more than twice a week." But the evidence they cited did not supply a triable issue of material fact. First, there is no record of a stay, either in superior court or in this court. Indeed, this court twice denied plaintiffs' petition— first, without prejudice to refiling it in superior court, and then, on December 20, 2007, by denying both the mandate petition and the request for a stay. Plaintiffs acknowledged the second order in their opposition.7
Plaintiffs did not dwell on the allegation of their pleading that the seizure by Animal Control was "without legal cause or authority," and hence this allegation will be treated as abandoned. As for visitation, plaintiffs did not deny that they received twice-weekly visits after the bite quarantine passed; they only complained that they had had to wait over a month and that they, as Lucy's "human parents," were prevented from visiting her more often. No evidence was supplied to support the inference that their visiting allowance was inadequate or even that they asked for more frequent visits.
As in the fifth cause of action, Ward's challenge to the sixth focused on the Humane Society's care of Lucy during the impoundment. She again described Lucy's enrichment plan and veterinary care. Plaintiffs' response was identical; thus, they again failed to show a triable issue of fact on the question of whether either Ward or other Humane Society employees breached the standard of care while Lucy was in their custody.
In connection with the euthanasia procedure itself, Ward offered the undisputed facts that plaintiffs did have a last visit with Lucy and that she did not personally perform the euthanasia procedure. In her declaration Ward explained that it was not her decision to exclude plaintiffs from the procedure; she was instructed to do so by the chief operating officer, in reliance on the advice of the Humane Society's legal counsel. Plaintiffs did dispute this statement, insisting that Ward had the "discretion" to allow them to be present. But the letter they cited as supporting evidence did not contradict Ward's declaration; it was only a December 20, 2007 request from the Animal Control officer, Michelle Morgan, that the Humane Society immediately proceed with the euthanasia pursuant to the superior court's September 12 order.8 The only reference to plaintiffs in the December 20 letter was an additional request that plaintiffs be permitted "a last visit with the dog subject to conditions as set by the Humane Society Silicon Valley." Those conditions were set—but by the chief operating officer and in-house counsel, not by Ward. Plaintiffs have convinced neither the superior court nor this court that Ward had a duty to allow them to be present during the procedure, particularly in light of the threats facing the Humane Society at the time. Plaintiffs' further dispute on the ground that "Lucy was killed while a stay was pending" was unavailing; as noted earlier, there was no such stay in place.
Thus, both of the negligence claims necessarily failed, as plaintiffs were unable to present a triable issue of material fact as to any breach of duty by Ward. Accordingly, the fifth and sixth causes of action were properly disposed of by summary adjudication.
Ward addressed the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress by restating the facts already presented, with an additional mention of plaintiffs' allegation that Ward "made fun of Plaintiffs and taunted them in front of a room full of other people." Ward noted that during discovery the only acts plaintiffs identified as taunting by her occurred on December 20, 2007. In support, she directed the court's attention to plaintiffs' answers to interrogatories, where plaintiffs stated that date as the time the taunting occurred. Ward disregarded Hedberg's reference to a prior statement by Ward that "none of the other dogs put in [the Humane Society] by Sunnyvale made it out alive, so we should just put Lucy down ourselves." But plaintiffs did not use these statements to counter Ward's assertion that the only taunting occurred on the day of the euthanasia. Instead they referred the court to their declarations. According to Hedberg's declaration, Ward said "as she shook her head, `None of them get out alive, not in ten years have they let one go.'" Both plaintiffs attributed similar statements to others, but only Hedberg mentioned the single statement by Ward. Plaintiffs make no effort to show the materiality of these statements.
In their answers to interrogatories, plaintiffs had characterized as taunting Ward's statement, "You knew the consequences of your actions." In her separate statement of undisputed facts Ward attributed the quoted statement as a response to Hedberg's repeated request to disregard the court order. In her declaration Ward explained what she meant by this comment: "that Lucy's impending euthanization followed from the seizure and plaintiffs' own conduct in controlling (or not controlling) Lucy which led to the seizure." Ward also stated that in neither her comments regarding plaintiffs' knowing "the consequences of their actions" nor in the exclusion of them from the euthanasia did she ever intend to cause plaintiffs emotional distress.
Plaintiffs did not dispute the assertion that Ward "responded to Hedberg's repeated request by telling her that she and Young knew the consequences of their actions." They did dispute the next statement, that "Ward repeated her response to Hedberg because Hedberg repeated her request to not proceed with the euthanasia." Their declarations, however, which they cited as evidence, did not support their opposition, as they contained no mention of the "consequences" statement. No evidence contradicted the point in Ward's declaration that what she meant by the "consequences" statement was that the euthanasia followed from the seizure because of "plaintiffs' own conduct in controlling (or not controlling) Lucy." Also uncontradicted by any admissible evidence was her explanation that she repeated the "consequences" statement "only because plaintiff Desiree Hedberg kept repeating her requests that the Humane Society not comply with the Court's order and the City's directive to proceed, and to be present at the euthanasia if it were to occur." Plaintiffs' suggestion that Ward's "consequences" statement was "in reference to her earlier threats to Christine Garcia and to Plaintiffs"9 failed, as it constituted only speculation about Ward's intended meaning or motivation in repeating that plaintiffs knew the consequences of their actions.
Ward thus succeeded in showing that plaintiffs would be unable to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress. While plaintiffs were unquestionably distressed that their family dog was to be euthanized, their opposition to Ward's separate statement of undisputed facts did not create a triable issue as to the outrageousness of Ward's conduct or suggest an actionable causal link between Ward's conduct and their distress. Indeed, they were unable to cite anything suggesting a triable issue on this claim beyond speculation regarding Ward's motives, assertion of immaterial facts, and repetition of allegations in their complaint. Plaintiffs do not attempt to support their allegation that the seizure and killing of Lucy were grounds for finding intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court therefore correctly granted summary adjudication of the seventh cause of action.
In the court below as well as on appeal, plaintiffs have implicitly conceded that no independent cause of action exists for punitive damages. Instead, they urge that the claim remain in the prayer for relief. As the superior court explained in its order, however, punitive damages may be awarded only as a remedy for conduct alleged in a particular cause of action. (McLaughlin v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1163; Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391; see also Coleman v. Gulf Ins. Group (1986) 41 Cal.3d 782, 789, fn. 2.) Because Ward has established that plaintiffs cannot recover on any of the causes of action in their first amended complaint, punitive damages are unavailable to them, and thus the purported ninth cause of action cannot stand.
Plaintiffs renew the additional argument that "[t]here is good reason to believe that [Ward] has a custom and policy of discriminating against [pit bulls] and their owners." This argument goes nowhere: not only does the evidence they cite not support the assertion,10 but they fail to identify the material issue to which this belief is relevant.
Plaintiffs were understandably upset that they were unable to save their pet from destruction. But language referring to themselves as Lucy's "human parents" and to the dog's "brutal treatment" and "execution" cannot substitute for a reasoned legal analysis of issues raised in the litigation. To prevail in their action against Ward, they would have had to state some viable cause of action on which to recover damages. Ward succeeded in setting forth undisputed facts establishing plaintiffs' inability to prove either negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Summary judgment was therefore properly granted.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
PREMO, Acting P. J. and BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J., concurs.
Footnotes
1. In relating the history of this dispute we disregard in its entirety the one-page statement of facts in plaintiffs' opening brief, which contains not a single citation to the record. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.204(a)(1)(C).)
2. This municipal law defines "vicious animal" to include an animal that demonstrates "any or all of the following behavior: [¶] (1) Without provocation inflicts bites on a human or a domestic animal while on public or private property; [¶] (2) Without provocation chases or approaches humans or domestic animals on the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a threatening manner or apparent attitude of attack; [¶] (3) Has a known propensity, tendency or disposition for unprovoked attack, causing injury or threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals; [¶] (4) Has been specially trained to guard persons and/or property."
"Any animal which demonstrates any or all of the foregoing shall be rebuttably presumed vicious."
3. Civil Code section 1834 states: "A depositary of living animals shall provide the animals with necessary and prompt veterinary care, nutrition, and shelter, and treat them kindly. Any depositary that fails to perform these duties may be liable for civil damages as provided by law." Food and Agricultural Code section 31107 states: "No dog which is impounded pursuant to this division shall be killed or otherwise disposed of without notice to the owner, if he is known."
4. This provision states: "A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative."
5. On appeal plaintiffs do not contest the superior court's rulings.
6. According to the veterinarian's records, an ocular abnormality was actually observed in September, and medication was thereafter administered.
7. The court excluded from evidence the proffered declaration of plaintiffs' attorney, Christine Garcia. Garcia described a conversation on December 20, 2007 with this court's deputy clerk, who informed Garcia that the writ petition had been denied. The account of the clerk's notification and the description of Garcia's reaction were likewise excluded.
8. Officer Morgan had made the same request on December 19, but Ward did not authorize the euthanasia on that day, because Hedberg or someone else representing plaintiffs had told her (inaccurately) that the Court of Appeal had granted a stay. In the letter the next day requesting immediate compliance with the court's order, Officer Morgan noted "multiple motions and appeals in this matter, and subsequent orders," including the superior court's denial of a stay on December 18.
9. In a declaration Garcia described an encounter in which she informed Ward that the Humane Society was breaking the law by killing Lucy while "there was a Writ still outstanding preventing execution of Lucy and that killing her would be unlawful." Garcia described Ward's reaction as angry, with "words to the effect of, `Nobody threatens me, I don't respond well to threats, there will be consequences!'"
10. In their declarations, both plaintiffs quoted Ward as saying (without attributing the statement to its specific subject, presumably pit bulls), "None of them get out alive, not in ten years have they let one go." Plaintiffs also cited Young's declaration, but that document contains no reference to any statement by Ward.
HEDBERG v. WARD
DESIREE HEDBERG, et. al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
BETH WARD, Defendant and Respondent.
No. H036406.
Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District.
Filed March 26, 2012.
ELIA, J.
In this appeal plaintiffs Desiree Hedberg and Ian Young challenge a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Beth Ward in their action for damages arising from the impoundment and euthanasia of their dog by the Humane Society of Silicon Valley. Plaintiffs contend that there were triable issues of fact in their claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that they were entitled to punitive damages arising from Ward's conduct. We find no error in the superior court's ruling and accordingly must affirm the judgment.
Background1
The subject of this litigation was plaintiffs' dog, a "pit bull" named Lucy. On July 30, 2007, an animal control officer from the City of Sunnyvale (City) took Lucy from her home to a shelter at the Humane Society Silicon Valley (Humane Society) and placed her in a 10-day "bite quarantine" as directed by the City's Animal Control Unit. Because the purpose of the quarantine period is to observe the animal for signs of rabies, a quarantined animal is required to stay in its kennel and no visitors are allowed during those 10 days.
Defendant Beth Ward, a vice-president at the Humane Society, was responsible for all aspects of animal and customer care. According to her declaration, Lucy was fed, given water, and cleaned every day by animal care technicians during the quarantine period. After that, she was given an "enrichment plan" consisting of "toys, bedding, interaction with people, and a comfortable environment . . . in addition to the basic necessities, such as food, water, exercise, and veterinary care." The Humane Society staff also provided socialization by interacting with her daily or near daily, and they arranged for twice weekly visits from plaintiffs. Ward knew of no incident in which Lucy was injured during her confinement at the Humane Society.
On September 12, 2007, after a hearing, the superior court determined that Lucy was a "vicious" animal as defined in Sunnyvale Ordinance No. 6.04.1602 "in that, without provocation, she inflicted bites both on a human and on domestic animals while on public property and, without provocation, chased and approached a human and domestic animals on a sidewalk in a threatening manner with [an] apparent attitude of attack and, in fact, killed one of those animals, a dog named `Bobbi.' "The court rejected plaintiffs' attempts to characterize the killing of Bobbi as "merely `discipline' or `corrective behavior,' "and it noted that "this neither defeats a finding of `vicious animal' nor provides reassurance as to Lucy's potential future behavior." The court therefore ordered Lucy destroyed.
Plaintiffs petitioned this court for a stay and a writ of supersedeas, asserting a violation of their due process rights. This court denied the petition without prejudice to its refiling in the appellate division of the superior court. The appellate division denied plaintiffs' ensuing petition, however, and on December 20, 2007, this court denied plaintiffs' final petition for a writ of mandate and request for stay.
While these proceedings were pending, Ward received more than 200 e-mail messages from all over the country and even outside the United States, all protesting the court's order. On December 18, 2007, plaintiffs themselves told Ward that the Humane Society should not follow the order; they said that they were angry and that there would be large protests at the Humane Society if it followed the court's order. Ward had assured plaintiffs that two of Lucy's caretakers, with whom she had become friendly, would attend the euthanasia. Plaintiffs were not permitted to be present during the procedure, however, because their attorney had threatened "ramifications, including lawsuits, if the Humane Society followed the Court's order."
On December 19, 2007, a representative of the city's Animal Control Unit delivered a letter to Ward requesting that the superior court's order be carried out by euthanizing Lucy. One of the plaintiffs had told Ward, however, that the appellate court had granted a stay. Accordingly, the Humane Society did not carry out the euthanasia request that day. On December 20, however, the Animal Control Unit made another euthanasia request, this time informing the Humane Society that a stay had been denied on December 18, 2007.
On December 20, 2007, plaintiffs were notified that the euthanasia was to take place and that they would be allowed one more visit with Lucy. Based on both plaintiffs' statements that a protest had been planned, Ward arranged for the police to conduct a civil standby during the euthanasia.
At the time of their one-hour private visit, plaintiff Hedberg repeatedly requested that the Humane Society disregard the court order, but if it had to occur, then she and Young wanted to be present during the euthanasia. Ward told plaintiffs that the Humane Society had no choice but to comply with the court order and that they would not be allowed to be present during the procedure. Lucy was euthanized that day, after plaintiffs' last visit. Shortly thereafter their attorney was notified that this court had denied plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate and request for a stay.
Plaintiffs initiated this action in January 2009, naming the County of Santa Clara, the City's Animal Control Unit; Michelle Morgan, the Animal Control officer who had seized Lucy; and Ward. The superior court sustained the City's and Morgan's demurrer to each cause of action as barred by immunity. The court also sustained Ward's demurrer without leave to amend as to five of the nine causes of action. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint repleading all of the same causes of action, this time naming only the County of Santa Clara and Ward. The court struck the duplicated causes of action, again without leave to amend, leaving only four claims: (1) negligence in the care of Lucy during the impoundment; (2) negligence in Lucy's care and in "not allowing [Lucy] to see the Plaintiffs and then killing her alone on a cold table"; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) conduct entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294.
On August 26, 2010, Ward moved for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication of these four causes of action. Ward generally asserted that none of plaintiffs' claims had merit because the dog had not been mistreated; she did not personally make the decision to euthanize Lucy or exclude plaintiffs from the procedure; and she neither acted outrageously nor intended to cause plaintiffs emotional distress. As to the claim for punitive damages, Ward stated that no such cause of action existed and that there was no factual basis for such an award in any event.
In their opposition plaintiffs asserted that Ward had a "custom and policy" of discriminating against "pit bull" dogs and their owners. They further attempted to show triable issues of fact regarding the adequacy of Lucy's care, Ward's exclusion of them from the euthanasia procedure, the decision to euthanize Lucy while a court stay was pending, and Ward's "horrific" conduct toward them. The superior court, however, rejected plaintiffs' arguments and granted summary judgment on November 19, 2010. The order was based on the court's conclusions that (1) any challenge to the lawfulness of the seizure and euthanasia was barred by collateral estoppel, (2) Ward had no duty to allow plaintiffs to attend the euthanasia; (3) it was not Ward's decision to exclude plaintiffs from the procedure, (4) there was no evidence of inadequate care of Lucy, and (5) plaintiffs would not be able to prove extreme and outrageous conduct. The court also noted the "well settled" law that a claim for punitive damages is a remedy, not a cause of action.
Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on December 20, 2010. Because judgment was not entered until December 27, 2010, the notice was clearly premature. Nevertheless, because a judgment was subsequently filed, we will exercise our discretion to construe the premature notice of appeal as pertaining to the December 27, 2010 judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(d)(2).)
Discussion
1. Standard of Review
Plaintiffs manifest a lack of understanding of the scope and standard of appellate review. Under the heading "Statement of Appealability" they insert the following hedged suggestion: "Review is either de novo or abuse of discretion and either way the issue is one of law." They repeat this statement under the heading "Standard of Review" and then immediately borrow an argument from some other case, proclaiming that "[t]he ruling barring the presentation of the veterinarian bills is reviewed for an abuse of discretion," followed by a discussion of this standard in light of "the trial court's in limine ruling." That ruling was apparently made by a female trial judge, in a "tort action over the intentional or negligent shooting of a pet." In the event that plaintiffs' brief reflects attorney ignorance rather than carelessness or laziness, we recite the long-established principles governing review of this frequently used procedural device, the summary judgment.
"The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 (Aguilar).) Summary judgment is appropriate "if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) A defendant who moves for summary judgment bears the initial burden to show that the action has no merit—that is, for each cause of action one or more elements "cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (o), (p)(2); Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850; Truong v. Glasser (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 102, 109.) When the burden of proof at trial will be on the plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence, the moving defendant "must present evidence that would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding that it was more likely than not that the material fact was true [citation], or the defendant must establish that an element of the claim cannot be established, by presenting evidence that the plaintiff `does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence'" to support a necessary element of the cause of action. (Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1003, quoting Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854; Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.)
If the moving defendant makes a prima facie showing that justifies a judgment in that defendant's favor, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing that there exists a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.) "The plaintiff . . . may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists, but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action . . . ." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)
On appeal, we conduct a de novo review of the record to "determine with respect to each cause of action whether the defendant seeking summary judgment has conclusively negated a necessary element of the plaintiff's case, or has demonstrated that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial, such that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 334; Daly v. Yessne (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 52, 58.) We apply the same procedure used by the trial court: We examine the pleadings to ascertain the elements of the plaintiff's claim; the moving papers to determine whether the defendant has established facts justifying judgment in its favor; and, if the defendant did meet this burden, plaintiff's opposition to decide whether he or she has demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 84-85; Varni Bros. Corp. v. Wine World, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 880, 887.) "We need not defer to the trial court and are not bound by the reasons for the summary judgment ruling; we review the ruling of the trial court, not its rationale." (Knapp v. Doherty, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 85.)
2. Plaintiffs' Complaint
Because it is the pleadings that define the issues to be resolved in a summary judgment proceeding, we first look to the allegations of plaintiffs' first amended complaint. The superior court having previously sustained Ward's demurrer without leave to amend, only four causes of action remain in this proceeding: the fifth, sixth, seventh, and ninth causes of action.
The fifth cause of action was for negligence. To prevail on this theory plaintiffs would have had to prove "each of the well-known elements of any negligence cause of action, viz., duty, breach of duty, proximate cause and damages." (Artiglio v. Corning Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 604, 614; Conroy v. Regents of University of Cal. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1250.) The parties focused solely on the first and second elements, the nature of the duty and whether any breach occurred.
Citing Civil Code section 1834 and Food and Agricultural Code section 31107,3 plaintiffs alleged that defendants had failed to act in accordance with the standard of care in hiring and supervising employees in the care and protection of impounded animals. They further asserted that defendants had "b[r]eached their duty to `LUCY' and her owners by seizing her without consent or legal authority, preventing her family from seeing her while impounded, and then killing her without legal cause or authority and violated Cal.Government Code §815.2(a).4 Additionally, the Court ruling allegedly `legalizing' the death of Lucy was erroneous and based on falsehoods and a mistake of law and fact."
The sixth cause of action was also for negligence: defendants had a duty to "treat `LUCY' kindly, to provide proper and necessary medical treatment, love and affection, and not to kill her." They also "knew or should have known that not allowing `LUCY' to see the Plaintiffs and then killing her alone on a cold table would create emotional and psychological injuries to Plaintiffs." Plaintiffs also repeated their allegation that "the Court ruling allegedly `legalizing' the death of Lucy was erroneous and based on falsehoods and a mistake of law and fact."
In the seventh cause of action plaintiffs alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress. To recover for this tort a plaintiff must prove three elements: "(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) the plaintiff's injuries were actually and proximately caused by the defendant's outrageous conduct." (Cochran v. Cochran (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 488, 494.)
Plaintiffs' claim was based on defendants' having seized Lucy without consent, and by "willfully, intentionally, and with malice" preventing plaintiffs "from visiting her and being with her when she [w]as killed without consent or legal authority." Defendants "refused to allow Plaintiffs to be with her [sic] beloved `LUCY' while she was being killed, [and] defendants made fun of Plaintiffs and taunted them in front of a room full of other people, including several police officers, so as to cause severe emotional distress to plaintiffs." Defendants "knew or should have known that willfully seizing, without legal justification or evidence, and then killing a family pet would panic [sic] and terrify persons present," and that this "outrageous" conduct "would cause the Plaintiffs severe emotional distress and mental anguish."
The ninth cause of action contained only allegations that they were entitled to punitive damages under Civil Code sections 3294 and 3340, because defendants had acted willfully and maliciously, "or by no less than by gross negligence," "or by no less than a reckless disregard" for Lucy's life, plaintiffs' property, or their "emotional tranquility." Plaintiffs once again claimed that the court's ruling authorizing Lucy's euthanasia was "erroneous and based on falsehoods and a mistake of law and fact."
3. Ward's Showing and Plaintiffs' Response
Ward's summary judgment motion was aimed at establishing that (1) Lucy had not been mistreated during her impoundment, (2) it was not Ward's decision to exclude plaintiffs from Lucy's euthanasia, and (3) Ward neither engaged in outrageous conduct nor intended to cause plaintiffs distress. Ward further contended that the claim of punitive damages lacked merit because there was no such cause of action, and there was no conduct justifying such an award in any event.
In support of the motion Ward offered the following as undisputed facts. First, she described the fifth cause of action as one based on "negligence in the treatment of Lucy, in the hiring and supervision of employees who cared for Lucy, and in euthanizing Lucy." Plaintiffs did not dispute this statement. Ward then stated, citing her declaration, that she had never injured Lucy, nor was she aware of any injury by a Humane Society employee. She noted the enrichment plan that had provided Lucy with "not only the necessities, such as food, water, exercise, and veterinary care, but toys and comfortable bedding." Plaintiffs did dispute this statement, citing only Hedberg's deposition, and asserted "no knowledge" of any enrichment plan. This response was manifestly inadequate to show a triable issue: In her deposition Hedberg only vaguely referred to Lucy's initial confinement without exercise and could not remember who had told her about this. The court properly sustained Ward's hearsay objection to Hedberg's statement that some "unidentified" person told her about the lack of exercise.5 Ward also named two employees who were primarily responsible for Lucy's care under the enrichment plan and with whom Lucy had developed a friendly relationship. Plaintiffs conceded the competency of these two employees. In short, plaintiffs' unawareness of the enrichment plan fell far short of rebutting Ward's statement of fact that such a plan was developed and implemented for Lucy.
Ward's assertion that Lucy received veterinary care was supported by not only her own declaration but a declaration from the veterinarian who had treated Lucy, and who expressed the opinion that the Humane Society and Ward were not negligent in providing the dog's care. Plaintiffs' opposition to the adequacy of Lucy's veterinary care was based on no expert evidence, but only Hedberg's own observation of what she believed to be an eye infection.6
In response to Ward's statement that she had never injured Lucy, plaintiffs further asserted that Ward "made the decision to kill Lucy while there was a pending stay, treated her unkindly, and prevented her human parents from visiting her more than twice a week." But the evidence they cited did not supply a triable issue of material fact. First, there is no record of a stay, either in superior court or in this court. Indeed, this court twice denied plaintiffs' petition— first, without prejudice to refiling it in superior court, and then, on December 20, 2007, by denying both the mandate petition and the request for a stay. Plaintiffs acknowledged the second order in their opposition.7
Plaintiffs did not dwell on the allegation of their pleading that the seizure by Animal Control was "without legal cause or authority," and hence this allegation will be treated as abandoned. As for visitation, plaintiffs did not deny that they received twice-weekly visits after the bite quarantine passed; they only complained that they had had to wait over a month and that they, as Lucy's "human parents," were prevented from visiting her more often. No evidence was supplied to support the inference that their visiting allowance was inadequate or even that they asked for more frequent visits.
As in the fifth cause of action, Ward's challenge to the sixth focused on the Humane Society's care of Lucy during the impoundment. She again described Lucy's enrichment plan and veterinary care. Plaintiffs' response was identical; thus, they again failed to show a triable issue of fact on the question of whether either Ward or other Humane Society employees breached the standard of care while Lucy was in their custody.
In connection with the euthanasia procedure itself, Ward offered the undisputed facts that plaintiffs did have a last visit with Lucy and that she did not personally perform the euthanasia procedure. In her declaration Ward explained that it was not her decision to exclude plaintiffs from the procedure; she was instructed to do so by the chief operating officer, in reliance on the advice of the Humane Society's legal counsel. Plaintiffs did dispute this statement, insisting that Ward had the "discretion" to allow them to be present. But the letter they cited as supporting evidence did not contradict Ward's declaration; it was only a December 20, 2007 request from the Animal Control officer, Michelle Morgan, that the Humane Society immediately proceed with the euthanasia pursuant to the superior court's September 12 order.8 The only reference to plaintiffs in the December 20 letter was an additional request that plaintiffs be permitted "a last visit with the dog subject to conditions as set by the Humane Society Silicon Valley." Those conditions were set—but by the chief operating officer and in-house counsel, not by Ward. Plaintiffs have convinced neither the superior court nor this court that Ward had a duty to allow them to be present during the procedure, particularly in light of the threats facing the Humane Society at the time. Plaintiffs' further dispute on the ground that "Lucy was killed while a stay was pending" was unavailing; as noted earlier, there was no such stay in place.
Thus, both of the negligence claims necessarily failed, as plaintiffs were unable to present a triable issue of material fact as to any breach of duty by Ward. Accordingly, the fifth and sixth causes of action were properly disposed of by summary adjudication.
Ward addressed the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress by restating the facts already presented, with an additional mention of plaintiffs' allegation that Ward "made fun of Plaintiffs and taunted them in front of a room full of other people." Ward noted that during discovery the only acts plaintiffs identified as taunting by her occurred on December 20, 2007. In support, she directed the court's attention to plaintiffs' answers to interrogatories, where plaintiffs stated that date as the time the taunting occurred. Ward disregarded Hedberg's reference to a prior statement by Ward that "none of the other dogs put in [the Humane Society] by Sunnyvale made it out alive, so we should just put Lucy down ourselves." But plaintiffs did not use these statements to counter Ward's assertion that the only taunting occurred on the day of the euthanasia. Instead they referred the court to their declarations. According to Hedberg's declaration, Ward said "as she shook her head, `None of them get out alive, not in ten years have they let one go.'" Both plaintiffs attributed similar statements to others, but only Hedberg mentioned the single statement by Ward. Plaintiffs make no effort to show the materiality of these statements.
In their answers to interrogatories, plaintiffs had characterized as taunting Ward's statement, "You knew the consequences of your actions." In her separate statement of undisputed facts Ward attributed the quoted statement as a response to Hedberg's repeated request to disregard the court order. In her declaration Ward explained what she meant by this comment: "that Lucy's impending euthanization followed from the seizure and plaintiffs' own conduct in controlling (or not controlling) Lucy which led to the seizure." Ward also stated that in neither her comments regarding plaintiffs' knowing "the consequences of their actions" nor in the exclusion of them from the euthanasia did she ever intend to cause plaintiffs emotional distress.
Plaintiffs did not dispute the assertion that Ward "responded to Hedberg's repeated request by telling her that she and Young knew the consequences of their actions." They did dispute the next statement, that "Ward repeated her response to Hedberg because Hedberg repeated her request to not proceed with the euthanasia." Their declarations, however, which they cited as evidence, did not support their opposition, as they contained no mention of the "consequences" statement. No evidence contradicted the point in Ward's declaration that what she meant by the "consequences" statement was that the euthanasia followed from the seizure because of "plaintiffs' own conduct in controlling (or not controlling) Lucy." Also uncontradicted by any admissible evidence was her explanation that she repeated the "consequences" statement "only because plaintiff Desiree Hedberg kept repeating her requests that the Humane Society not comply with the Court's order and the City's directive to proceed, and to be present at the euthanasia if it were to occur." Plaintiffs' suggestion that Ward's "consequences" statement was "in reference to her earlier threats to Christine Garcia and to Plaintiffs"9 failed, as it constituted only speculation about Ward's intended meaning or motivation in repeating that plaintiffs knew the consequences of their actions.
Ward thus succeeded in showing that plaintiffs would be unable to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress. While plaintiffs were unquestionably distressed that their family dog was to be euthanized, their opposition to Ward's separate statement of undisputed facts did not create a triable issue as to the outrageousness of Ward's conduct or suggest an actionable causal link between Ward's conduct and their distress. Indeed, they were unable to cite anything suggesting a triable issue on this claim beyond speculation regarding Ward's motives, assertion of immaterial facts, and repetition of allegations in their complaint. Plaintiffs do not attempt to support their allegation that the seizure and killing of Lucy were grounds for finding intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court therefore correctly granted summary adjudication of the seventh cause of action.
In the court below as well as on appeal, plaintiffs have implicitly conceded that no independent cause of action exists for punitive damages. Instead, they urge that the claim remain in the prayer for relief. As the superior court explained in its order, however, punitive damages may be awarded only as a remedy for conduct alleged in a particular cause of action. (McLaughlin v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1163; Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391; see also Coleman v. Gulf Ins. Group (1986) 41 Cal.3d 782, 789, fn. 2.) Because Ward has established that plaintiffs cannot recover on any of the causes of action in their first amended complaint, punitive damages are unavailable to them, and thus the purported ninth cause of action cannot stand.
Plaintiffs renew the additional argument that "[t]here is good reason to believe that [Ward] has a custom and policy of discriminating against [pit bulls] and their owners." This argument goes nowhere: not only does the evidence they cite not support the assertion,10 but they fail to identify the material issue to which this belief is relevant.
Plaintiffs were understandably upset that they were unable to save their pet from destruction. But language referring to themselves as Lucy's "human parents" and to the dog's "brutal treatment" and "execution" cannot substitute for a reasoned legal analysis of issues raised in the litigation. To prevail in their action against Ward, they would have had to state some viable cause of action on which to recover damages. Ward succeeded in setting forth undisputed facts establishing plaintiffs' inability to prove either negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Summary judgment was therefore properly granted.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
PREMO, Acting P. J. and BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J., concurs.
Footnotes
1. In relating the history of this dispute we disregard in its entirety the one-page statement of facts in plaintiffs' opening brief, which contains not a single citation to the record. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.204(a)(1)(C).)
2. This municipal law defines "vicious animal" to include an animal that demonstrates "any or all of the following behavior: [¶] (1) Without provocation inflicts bites on a human or a domestic animal while on public or private property; [¶] (2) Without provocation chases or approaches humans or domestic animals on the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a threatening manner or apparent attitude of attack; [¶] (3) Has a known propensity, tendency or disposition for unprovoked attack, causing injury or threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals; [¶] (4) Has been specially trained to guard persons and/or property."
"Any animal which demonstrates any or all of the foregoing shall be rebuttably presumed vicious."
3. Civil Code section 1834 states: "A depositary of living animals shall provide the animals with necessary and prompt veterinary care, nutrition, and shelter, and treat them kindly. Any depositary that fails to perform these duties may be liable for civil damages as provided by law." Food and Agricultural Code section 31107 states: "No dog which is impounded pursuant to this division shall be killed or otherwise disposed of without notice to the owner, if he is known."
4. This provision states: "A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative."
5. On appeal plaintiffs do not contest the superior court's rulings.
6. According to the veterinarian's records, an ocular abnormality was actually observed in September, and medication was thereafter administered.
7. The court excluded from evidence the proffered declaration of plaintiffs' attorney, Christine Garcia. Garcia described a conversation on December 20, 2007 with this court's deputy clerk, who informed Garcia that the writ petition had been denied. The account of the clerk's notification and the description of Garcia's reaction were likewise excluded.
8. Officer Morgan had made the same request on December 19, but Ward did not authorize the euthanasia on that day, because Hedberg or someone else representing plaintiffs had told her (inaccurately) that the Court of Appeal had granted a stay. In the letter the next day requesting immediate compliance with the court's order, Officer Morgan noted "multiple motions and appeals in this matter, and subsequent orders," including the superior court's denial of a stay on December 18.
9. In a declaration Garcia described an encounter in which she informed Ward that the Humane Society was breaking the law by killing Lucy while "there was a Writ still outstanding preventing execution of Lucy and that killing her would be unlawful." Garcia described Ward's reaction as angry, with "words to the effect of, `Nobody threatens me, I don't respond well to threats, there will be consequences!'"
10. In their declarations, both plaintiffs quoted Ward as saying (without attributing the statement to its specific subject, presumably pit bulls), "None of them get out alive, not in ten years have they let one go." Plaintiffs also cited Young's declaration, but that document contains no reference to any statement by Ward.
Diamond Pet Foods Voluntarily Recall
To contact us Click HERE
Diamond Pet Foods Voluntarily Recalls Limited Number of
Dry Dog Food Bags Due to a Potential Health Risk
Recall is limited to one formula of Diamond Naturals distributed to 12 states;
no illnesses reported
Diamond Pet Foods is voluntarily recalling Diamond Naturals Lamb Meal & Rice. This is being done as a precautionary measure, as the product has the potential to be contaminated with salmonella. No illnesses have been reported and no other Diamond manufactured products are affected.
Individuals handling dry pet food can become infected with salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with surfaces exposed to this product. Healthy people infected with salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, salmonella can result in more serious ailments including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers.
Pets with salmonella infections may have decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. If left untreated, pets may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever and vomiting. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.
The product, Diamond Naturals Lamb Meal & Rice, was distributed to customers located in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia, who may have further distributed the product to other states, through pet food channels.
- 6-pound bag with the production code DLR0101D3XALW and best before Jan. 4, 2013;
- 20-pound bag with the production code DLR0101C31XAG and best before Jan. 3, 2013
- 40-pound bag with the production code DLR0101C31XMF and best before Jan. 3, 2013
- 40-pound bag with the production code DLR0101C31XAG and best before Jan. 3, 2013
- 40-pound bag with the production code DLR0101D32XMS and best before Jan. 4, 2013
Consumers who have purchased the Diamond Naturals Lamb & Rice with the specific production and “Best Before” codes should discontinue feeding the product and discard it.
At Diamond Pet Foods, the safety of our products is our top priority. We apologize for any inconvenience this recall may have caused. For further information or to obtain a product refund please call us at 800-442-0402 or visit www.diamondpet.com.
Dry Dog Food Bags Due to a Potential Health Risk
Recall is limited to one formula of Diamond Naturals distributed to 12 states;
no illnesses reported
Diamond Pet Foods is voluntarily recalling Diamond Naturals Lamb Meal & Rice. This is being done as a precautionary measure, as the product has the potential to be contaminated with salmonella. No illnesses have been reported and no other Diamond manufactured products are affected.
Individuals handling dry pet food can become infected with salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with surfaces exposed to this product. Healthy people infected with salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, salmonella can result in more serious ailments including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers.
Pets with salmonella infections may have decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. If left untreated, pets may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever and vomiting. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.
The product, Diamond Naturals Lamb Meal & Rice, was distributed to customers located in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia, who may have further distributed the product to other states, through pet food channels.
- 6-pound bag with the production code DLR0101D3XALW and best before Jan. 4, 2013;
- 20-pound bag with the production code DLR0101C31XAG and best before Jan. 3, 2013
- 40-pound bag with the production code DLR0101C31XMF and best before Jan. 3, 2013
- 40-pound bag with the production code DLR0101C31XAG and best before Jan. 3, 2013
- 40-pound bag with the production code DLR0101D32XMS and best before Jan. 4, 2013
Consumers who have purchased the Diamond Naturals Lamb & Rice with the specific production and “Best Before” codes should discontinue feeding the product and discard it.
At Diamond Pet Foods, the safety of our products is our top priority. We apologize for any inconvenience this recall may have caused. For further information or to obtain a product refund please call us at 800-442-0402 or visit www.diamondpet.com.
Another Diamond Pet Food Recall
To contact us Click HERE
Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul Issues Voluntary Recall
Recall is limited to one formula of Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul distributed to 10 statesDiamond Pet Foods is recalling one production run of Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul Adult Light Formula dry dog food. One bag of the product has tested positive forSalmonella, and the recall of the four production codes is being conducted as aprecautionary measure. We encourage consumers who have purchased Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul Adult Light Formula dry dog food with the specific production codes and best before dates to discard the product. Diamond Pet Foods apologizes for any potential issues this may have caused our customers and their dogs. No dog illnesses have been reported.Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul Adult Light Formula – dry dog food:35 lb - CLF0102B31XCW, Best by Date 27/JAN/201335 lb - CLF0102B31XCW, Best by Date 28/JAN/201335 lb - CLF0102B32XWR, Best by Date 28/JAN/20136 lb - CLF0102B3XALW, Best by Date 28/JAN/2013Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul Adult Light Formula dry dog food is manufactured by Diamond Pet Foods and was distributed in Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia, who may have further distributed the product to other states, through pet food channels. The company is working directly with distributors and retailers who carry these products to remove them from the supply chain.Pets with Salmonella infections may have decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. If left untreated, pets may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever and vomiting. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.Individuals handling dry pet food can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with surfaces exposed to this product. Healthy people infected with salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. According to the Centers for Disease Control, people who are more likely to be affected by Salmonella include infants, children younger than 5 years old, organ transplant patients, people with HIV/AIDS and people receiving treatment for cancer.Pet owners, who are unsure if the product they purchased is included in the recall, or who would like replacement product or a refund, may contact us at 800-442-0402.
Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul Issues Voluntary Recall
Recall is limited to one formula of Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul distributed to 10 statesDiamond Pet Foods is recalling one production run of Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul Adult Light Formula dry dog food. One bag of the product has tested positive forSalmonella, and the recall of the four production codes is being conducted as aprecautionary measure. We encourage consumers who have purchased Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul Adult Light Formula dry dog food with the specific production codes and best before dates to discard the product. Diamond Pet Foods apologizes for any potential issues this may have caused our customers and their dogs. No dog illnesses have been reported.Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul Adult Light Formula – dry dog food:35 lb - CLF0102B31XCW, Best by Date 27/JAN/201335 lb - CLF0102B31XCW, Best by Date 28/JAN/201335 lb - CLF0102B32XWR, Best by Date 28/JAN/20136 lb - CLF0102B3XALW, Best by Date 28/JAN/2013Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul Adult Light Formula dry dog food is manufactured by Diamond Pet Foods and was distributed in Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia, who may have further distributed the product to other states, through pet food channels. The company is working directly with distributors and retailers who carry these products to remove them from the supply chain.Pets with Salmonella infections may have decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. If left untreated, pets may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever and vomiting. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.Individuals handling dry pet food can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with surfaces exposed to this product. Healthy people infected with salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. According to the Centers for Disease Control, people who are more likely to be affected by Salmonella include infants, children younger than 5 years old, organ transplant patients, people with HIV/AIDS and people receiving treatment for cancer.Pet owners, who are unsure if the product they purchased is included in the recall, or who would like replacement product or a refund, may contact us at 800-442-0402.
So How Dose Your Pet Greet You Because Adopt-a-Pet Wants To Know
To contact us Click HERE
Best Welcome Home Ever” PSA to Capture Warm and Welcoming Pet Greetings
It can be a leap into your arms, a friendly lick or a little nuzzle on your cheek. It’s not a Valentine’s Day greeting from a loved one, but the warm welcome a pet provides to his/her owner when they come home.
Adopt-a-Pet.com announced today the launch of “Best Welcome Home Ever,” a public service campaign intended to increase pet adoptions that will showcase all the silly, crazy and hilarious ways that pets greet their owners.“Best Welcome Home Ever,” co-sponsored by Bayer HealthCare LLC, Animal Health Division’s resQ® microchip, invites pet owners to submit a video demonstrating the unique ways their pets greet them as they walk through the door. Interested pet owners can visit the “Best Welcome Home Ever” website at www.BestWelcomeHomeEver.com for details on how to submit their video.BestWelcomeHomeEver.com will feature many heartwarming or clever submissions, including those already created by Adopt-a-Pet.com staff. Several entries will ultimately be edited into a public service announcement for television and Internet broadcast at a later date.“Whether you’ve returned from a long day at work or just a short trip to the supermarket, the sheer joy that a pet gives his or her owner when they walk back through the door is just so affirming,” said David Meyer, Co-Founder of Adopt-a-Pet.com. “We hope that others find inspiration in these greetings and will look to their local shelter or rescue group to adopt their own furry welcoming committee into their lives.”About Adopt-a-Pet.com:Adopt-a-Pet.com is North America’s largest non-profit pet adoption website, helping over 11,000 animal shelters, humane societies, SPCAs, pet rescue groups, and pet adoption agencies advertise their homeless pets to adopters. Every month, Adopt-a-Pet.com displays photos and descriptions of adoptable pets to over 1.5 million people trying to adopt a pet. Funding for Adopt-a-Pet.com is provided by the passionate pet lovers at Nestlé Purina and Bayer HealthCare LLC, Animal Health Division.
Best Welcome Home Ever” PSA to Capture Warm and Welcoming Pet Greetings
It can be a leap into your arms, a friendly lick or a little nuzzle on your cheek. It’s not a Valentine’s Day greeting from a loved one, but the warm welcome a pet provides to his/her owner when they come home.
Adopt-a-Pet.com announced today the launch of “Best Welcome Home Ever,” a public service campaign intended to increase pet adoptions that will showcase all the silly, crazy and hilarious ways that pets greet their owners.“Best Welcome Home Ever,” co-sponsored by Bayer HealthCare LLC, Animal Health Division’s resQ® microchip, invites pet owners to submit a video demonstrating the unique ways their pets greet them as they walk through the door. Interested pet owners can visit the “Best Welcome Home Ever” website at www.BestWelcomeHomeEver.com for details on how to submit their video.BestWelcomeHomeEver.com will feature many heartwarming or clever submissions, including those already created by Adopt-a-Pet.com staff. Several entries will ultimately be edited into a public service announcement for television and Internet broadcast at a later date.“Whether you’ve returned from a long day at work or just a short trip to the supermarket, the sheer joy that a pet gives his or her owner when they walk back through the door is just so affirming,” said David Meyer, Co-Founder of Adopt-a-Pet.com. “We hope that others find inspiration in these greetings and will look to their local shelter or rescue group to adopt their own furry welcoming committee into their lives.”About Adopt-a-Pet.com:Adopt-a-Pet.com is North America’s largest non-profit pet adoption website, helping over 11,000 animal shelters, humane societies, SPCAs, pet rescue groups, and pet adoption agencies advertise their homeless pets to adopters. Every month, Adopt-a-Pet.com displays photos and descriptions of adoptable pets to over 1.5 million people trying to adopt a pet. Funding for Adopt-a-Pet.com is provided by the passionate pet lovers at Nestlé Purina and Bayer HealthCare LLC, Animal Health Division.
Wellpet LLC And Canid Foods Both Have Dog Food Recalls
To contact us Click HERE
Contact:
Consumer
877-227-9587
WellPet LLC announced a voluntary recall of one recipe of Wellness® dry dog food after being notified by Diamond Pet Foods regarding the presence of Salmonella in Diamond’s Gaston, South Carolina facility.All Wellness products are tested for Salmonella and all lots tested negative prior to shipping to customers. The company is voluntarily recalling the select products below. This voluntary recall is being done out of an abundance of caution as these products were produced at the facility that has been linked to recent recalls of Diamond brand foods due to the threat of Salmonella.Pets with Salmonella infections may have decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. If left untreated, pets may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever and vomiting. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.Individuals handling dry pet food can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with surfaces exposed to this product. People who believe they may have been exposed to Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. According to the Centers for Disease Control, people who are more likely to be affected by Salmonella include infants, children younger than 5 years old, organ transplant patients, people with HIV/AIDS and people receiving treatment for cancer.The products involved in this voluntary recall are:Wellness Complete Health® Super5Mix® Large Breed Puppy, 15 lb. and 30 lb. bags and 5 oz. sample bags with best by dates of JAN 9 2013 through JAN 11 2013.Best by dates (lot codes) can be found on the back of the bag in the bottom right-hand corner.No other WellPet recipes, sizes or brands of food are impacted by this voluntary recall"As a pet parent myself, I know how important peace of mind is when it comes to the health of our pets, and that is why we require that all of our products undergo testing forSalmonella, among other things," said Tim Callahan, chief executive officer of WellPet, the maker of Wellness® products. "All of these lots tested negative prior to being released for sale. We are voluntarily taking this additional step to further safeguard our dogs and to put our customers’ minds at ease."The majority of Wellness natural products for pets are produced in WellPet's own modern state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in Mishawaka, Indiana. WellPet no longer purchases any products from Diamond Pet Foods.Pet owners who are unsure if the product they purchased is included in the recall, would like replacement product or have additional questions, may call us at (877) 227-9587 (Monday – Friday, 8:00 AM through 6:00 PM Eastern time and Saturday and Sunday, 9:00 AM through 5:00 PM Eastern time).
UPDATED: CORRECT PRODUCTION CODE INFORMATION
Contact:
Consumer Contact: 800-398-1600
Canidae Pet Foods announced today that it is issuing a voluntary recall of certain dry pet food formulas manufactured between December 9, 2011, and January 31, 2012 at the Diamond Pet Food Gaston, South Carolina plant.Although there have been no animal or human illnesses related to Canidae Pet Food, and the product has not tested positive for Salmonella, the company has voluntarily initiated this recall out of caution to ensure the health and safety of consumers and their pets.The below list of product with production codes that must have both a number “3” in the 9th position AND an “X” in the 10th or 11th position with best before dates of December 9, 2012, through January 31, 2013 which are being recalled.
The recall affects only products distributed in the following Eastern U.S. states which were manufactured at the Diamond Pet Food Gaston, South Carolina plant. Further distribution to other pet food channels may occur:Florida, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, TennesseeCanidae Pet Foods apologizes for any potential issues this may have caused pet owners and their pets.Pet owners who are unsure if the product they purchased is included in the recall, or who would like a replacement product or a refund, may contact Canidae Pet Foods via a toll free call at 1-800-398-1600,Monday through Friday, 9 am – 5 pm PST. Consumers may also go to canidae.com for more information. The company is working with distributors and retailers to ensure all products affected by this voluntary recall are removed from shelves.
Wellpet LLC Voluntarily Recalls One Recipe Of Dry Dog Food Due To Salmonella At Diamond Pet Foods' Facility
Contact:
Consumer
877-227-9587
WellPet LLC announced a voluntary recall of one recipe of Wellness® dry dog food after being notified by Diamond Pet Foods regarding the presence of Salmonella in Diamond’s Gaston, South Carolina facility.All Wellness products are tested for Salmonella and all lots tested negative prior to shipping to customers. The company is voluntarily recalling the select products below. This voluntary recall is being done out of an abundance of caution as these products were produced at the facility that has been linked to recent recalls of Diamond brand foods due to the threat of Salmonella.Pets with Salmonella infections may have decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. If left untreated, pets may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever and vomiting. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.Individuals handling dry pet food can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with surfaces exposed to this product. People who believe they may have been exposed to Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. According to the Centers for Disease Control, people who are more likely to be affected by Salmonella include infants, children younger than 5 years old, organ transplant patients, people with HIV/AIDS and people receiving treatment for cancer.The products involved in this voluntary recall are:Wellness Complete Health® Super5Mix® Large Breed Puppy, 15 lb. and 30 lb. bags and 5 oz. sample bags with best by dates of JAN 9 2013 through JAN 11 2013.Best by dates (lot codes) can be found on the back of the bag in the bottom right-hand corner.No other WellPet recipes, sizes or brands of food are impacted by this voluntary recall"As a pet parent myself, I know how important peace of mind is when it comes to the health of our pets, and that is why we require that all of our products undergo testing forSalmonella, among other things," said Tim Callahan, chief executive officer of WellPet, the maker of Wellness® products. "All of these lots tested negative prior to being released for sale. We are voluntarily taking this additional step to further safeguard our dogs and to put our customers’ minds at ease."The majority of Wellness natural products for pets are produced in WellPet's own modern state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in Mishawaka, Indiana. WellPet no longer purchases any products from Diamond Pet Foods.Pet owners who are unsure if the product they purchased is included in the recall, would like replacement product or have additional questions, may call us at (877) 227-9587 (Monday – Friday, 8:00 AM through 6:00 PM Eastern time and Saturday and Sunday, 9:00 AM through 5:00 PM Eastern time).
UPDATED: CORRECT PRODUCTION CODE INFORMATION
Canidae Pet Foods Initiates Voluntary Recall of Dry Pet Food Due to the
Potential for Salmonella
Contact:
Consumer Contact: 800-398-1600
Canidae Pet Foods announced today that it is issuing a voluntary recall of certain dry pet food formulas manufactured between December 9, 2011, and January 31, 2012 at the Diamond Pet Food Gaston, South Carolina plant.Although there have been no animal or human illnesses related to Canidae Pet Food, and the product has not tested positive for Salmonella, the company has voluntarily initiated this recall out of caution to ensure the health and safety of consumers and their pets.The below list of product with production codes that must have both a number “3” in the 9th position AND an “X” in the 10th or 11th position with best before dates of December 9, 2012, through January 31, 2013 which are being recalled.
- Canidae Dog, All Life Stages
- Canidae Dog, Chicken Meal & Rice
- Canidae Dog, Lamb Meal & Rice
- Canidae Dog, Platinum
The recall affects only products distributed in the following Eastern U.S. states which were manufactured at the Diamond Pet Food Gaston, South Carolina plant. Further distribution to other pet food channels may occur:Florida, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, TennesseeCanidae Pet Foods apologizes for any potential issues this may have caused pet owners and their pets.Pet owners who are unsure if the product they purchased is included in the recall, or who would like a replacement product or a refund, may contact Canidae Pet Foods via a toll free call at 1-800-398-1600,Monday through Friday, 9 am – 5 pm PST. Consumers may also go to canidae.com for more information. The company is working with distributors and retailers to ensure all products affected by this voluntary recall are removed from shelves.
7 Temmuz 2012 Cumartesi
Another Dog Food Recall, This Time By Solid Gold Health Products for Pets
To contact us Click HERE
Contact:
Consumer:
(800) 364-4863 Solid Gold Health Products for Pets, Inc., El Cajon, California, announced a voluntary recall of one batch of WolfCub Large Breed Puppy Food and one batch of Solid Gold WolfKing Large Breed Adult Dog, both with a Best Before date of December 30, 2012, and an “X” in the 11th digit of the date code.
Solid Gold is voluntarily recalling the products below, distributed in the United States and Canada. This voluntary recall is being done out of an abundance of caution as these products were produced at the facility that has been linked to recent recalls of Diamond brand pet foods due to potential Salmonella contamination.
Pets with Salmonella infections may have decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. If left untreated, pets may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever and vomiting. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.
Individuals handling dry pet food can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with surfaces exposed to this product. People who believe they may have been exposed to Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. According to the Centers for Disease Control, people who are more likely to be affected by Salmonella include infants, children younger than 5 years old, organ transplant patients, people with HIV/AIDS and people receiving treatment for cancer.
The products involved in this voluntary recall are:
Solid Gold WolfCub Large Breed Puppy Food, 4 lb, 15 lb, and 33 lb, with a best before date of December 30, 2012 and batch code starting with SGB1201A31X.
4 lb identifying UPC 093766750005
15 lb identifying UPC 093766750012
33 lb identifying UPC 093766750029
Solid Gold WolfKing Large Breed Adult Dog Food, 4 lb, 15 lb, and 28.5 lb, with a best before date of December 30, 2012 and batch code starting with SGL1201A32X
4 lb identifying UPC 093766750050
15 lb identifying UPC 093766750067
28.5 lb identifying UPC 093766750081
Best by dates (lot codes) can be found on the back of the bag in the bottom right-hand corner of 33 lb, 28.5 lb and 15 lb bags and the bottom of the 4 lb bags.
Other Solid Gold recipes, sizes or brands of food are not impacted by this voluntary recall.
Pet owners who are unsure if the product they purchased is included in the recall, would like replacement product or have additional questions, may call us at (800) 364-4863 (Monday – Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM Pacific time).
Solid Gold Health Products for Pets, Inc. Recalls Dog Food Because of Possible Salmonella Health Risk
Contact:
Consumer:
(800) 364-4863 Solid Gold Health Products for Pets, Inc., El Cajon, California, announced a voluntary recall of one batch of WolfCub Large Breed Puppy Food and one batch of Solid Gold WolfKing Large Breed Adult Dog, both with a Best Before date of December 30, 2012, and an “X” in the 11th digit of the date code.
Solid Gold is voluntarily recalling the products below, distributed in the United States and Canada. This voluntary recall is being done out of an abundance of caution as these products were produced at the facility that has been linked to recent recalls of Diamond brand pet foods due to potential Salmonella contamination.
Pets with Salmonella infections may have decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. If left untreated, pets may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever and vomiting. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.
Individuals handling dry pet food can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with surfaces exposed to this product. People who believe they may have been exposed to Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. According to the Centers for Disease Control, people who are more likely to be affected by Salmonella include infants, children younger than 5 years old, organ transplant patients, people with HIV/AIDS and people receiving treatment for cancer.
The products involved in this voluntary recall are:
Solid Gold WolfCub Large Breed Puppy Food, 4 lb, 15 lb, and 33 lb, with a best before date of December 30, 2012 and batch code starting with SGB1201A31X.
4 lb identifying UPC 093766750005
15 lb identifying UPC 093766750012
33 lb identifying UPC 093766750029
Solid Gold WolfKing Large Breed Adult Dog Food, 4 lb, 15 lb, and 28.5 lb, with a best before date of December 30, 2012 and batch code starting with SGL1201A32X
4 lb identifying UPC 093766750050
15 lb identifying UPC 093766750067
28.5 lb identifying UPC 093766750081
Best by dates (lot codes) can be found on the back of the bag in the bottom right-hand corner of 33 lb, 28.5 lb and 15 lb bags and the bottom of the 4 lb bags.
Other Solid Gold recipes, sizes or brands of food are not impacted by this voluntary recall.
Pet owners who are unsure if the product they purchased is included in the recall, would like replacement product or have additional questions, may call us at (800) 364-4863 (Monday – Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM Pacific time).
So Do Car Safety Restraints For Dogs Really Work
To contact us Click HERE
A pilot study conducted by the Center for Pet Safety has shown that pet safety restraints used in cars may be unsafe, leaving the animals to become projectiles, possibly causing severe injury or death to the animal and potential injury to human family members if an accident occurs. The Center for Pet Safety is located in Haymarket, Virginia, just outside Washington, DC.
The Center for Pet Safety is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization which is undertaking a study to define safe travel for companion animals and their owners in a moving vehicle. Currently, animal restraints are not held to specific safety standards and testing by the manufacturer is not a requirement.Through scientific testing, data collection, and analysis, the Center for Pet Safety plans to author studies of specific types of pet travel “safety” devices and from those studies to develop criteria and test protocols to support safe performance. The Center for Pet Safety is an independent organization, not associated with any pet product manufacturer. The Center is currently seeking grant funding to continue its independent research."With tens of millions of dogs traveling with their families every year, the use of pet travel safety restraints is at an all-time high," says Lindsey Wolko, founder and chairman of the Center for Pet Safety. "Safety advocates, travel associations and now law enforcement agencies are recommending ormandating the use of pet safety restraints. But how does the consumer know that the pet harnesses and crates actually protect their pet in the case of an accident? There are currently no official standards to measure performance success, nor are manufacturers required to test their products for this category of pet product. So who says 'safe' is safe?"While Wolko agrees that tethering or containing your pet may help reduce incidents of distracted driving, any other safety claims must be proven through the development of performance criteria and test methodologies. "Saying that these products prevent your pet from becoming a projectile in an accident is a potentially misleading statement. In our pilot study, the harnesses tested failed to keep the dog from becoming a projectile in a standardized crash simulation."The pilot study conducted by the Center for Pet Safety in 2011 indicated a 100% failure rate of a set of four popular animal travel harnesses crash tested according to the conditions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 for child safety seats. FMVSS 213 was selected as it is commonly referenced by some pet product manufacturers and pet safety advocates as a general standard.The harness size selection for the CPS pilot study was based on the American Kennel Club’s Most Popular Dog Breed List from 2010, where six of the top ten dog breeds were within the “large” harness category. A realistic crash test dog was specially designed, weighted and instrumented for data collection. In 2011 Lindsey Wolko, pet safety advocate and founder of The Center for Pet Safety, invested over $10,000.00 in scientific testing of pet harnesses used in automobile travel. A “blind” control group of pet travel harnesses was selected for the pilot study. Wolko hired an independent test laboratory, MGA Research Corporation in Manassas, Virginia, to perform unbiased scientific product testing.MGA Research Corporation performs safety compliance testing for FMVSS 213 child restraint systems for the U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.The goal of the testing was to determine if the products protected the companion animal from injury in a standardized crash simulation. A second round of quasi-static testing was completed to confirm the initial dynamic test results. A weighted and instrumented crash test dog was developed for the tests. No live animals were used for the tests.Procedures for the testing of companion animal restraints:
A total of 12 restraints from major brands within the pet product industry were purchased from online vendor/manufacturer websites and delivered by independent carrier (UPS, USPS,etc) to the test laboratory. The restraints were received in new, unused condition with intact packaging. The restraints were handled only by laboratory personnel. Out of an initial sampling of 12 brands, four harnesses were selected as a "control group". Selection of the control group was based on perceived strength of the materials and design, associated marketing materials that indicated testing had been completed by the manufacturer and the reputation of the manufacturer in the pet travel product marketplace – similar to the way the consumer would select a product for purchase. Although not identified in the study, the control group harnesses are considered quality brands within the pet product industry and are widely marketed as safety devices for companion animal travel."We have re-sampled these products and performed follow-up testing to confirm our initial findings," says Wolko. "While we did not test all brands of harnesses in our initial pilot study, our sampling was broad enough for us to gain better insight regarding the expected performance of these products when tested to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 conditions. Their safety is not guaranteed and the buyer should beware."About the Center for Pet Safety:
The Center for Pet Safety was founded in 2011 and is a registered 501(c)3 research organization dedicated to companion animal and consumer safety. The idea for the Center for Pet Safety was developed from eight years of pet product industry and consumer research.In 2004 Lindsey Wolko’s dog, Maggie, was injured by a poorly designed safety harness designed for car travel. At that time, Wolko began to purchase pet travel products and try them with her dogs. This practice continued until she launched Canine Commuter in 2007.Through Canine Commuter, Wolko independently sampled and tested pet products for quality and performance. She purchased the products, ran them through consumer trials, and evaluated them for wear and tear, instructions, marketing, packaging and overall product performance. Over time, Wolko developed official product reports and a formal Consumer Trial Methodology. Products were given a rating based on their overall performance. The products that passed were included on Canine Commuter’s website. Products that failed were put on an unpublished “Watch” list – for follow-up with the manufacturer and future re-evaluation if product improvements were made.In 2010, Canine Commuter was contacted repeatedly by new pet product manufacturers to lend their product expertise to evaluate proposed product lines and provide feedback. This testing was formalized with the incorporation of the Center of Pet Safety in July 2011 and its recognition by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. The Center for Pet Safety is currently seeking grant funding to continue its independent research. Donations may be made through The Center for Pet Safety’s websitehttp://www.centerforpetsafety.org/donate-today/.For more information on the Center for Pet Safety, visit http://www.centerforpetsafety.org.
Car Safety Restraints For Dogs Found Potentially Unsafe in Pilot Study from the Center for Pet Safety
A pilot study conducted by the Center for Pet Safety has shown that pet safety restraints used in cars may be unsafe, leaving the animals to become projectiles, possibly causing severe injury or death to the animal and potential injury to human family members if an accident occurs. The Center for Pet Safety is located in Haymarket, Virginia, just outside Washington, DC.
A pilot study conducted by the Center for Pet Safetyhas shown that pet safety restraints used in cars may be unsafe, leaving the animals to become projectiles, possibly causing severe injury or death to the animal and potential injury to human family members if an accident occurs. The Center for Pet Safety is located in Haymarket, Virginia, just outside Washington, DC.
The Center for Pet Safety is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization which is undertaking a study to define safe travel for companion animals and their owners in a moving vehicle. Currently, animal restraints are not held to specific safety standards and testing by the manufacturer is not a requirement.Through scientific testing, data collection, and analysis, the Center for Pet Safety plans to author studies of specific types of pet travel “safety” devices and from those studies to develop criteria and test protocols to support safe performance. The Center for Pet Safety is an independent organization, not associated with any pet product manufacturer. The Center is currently seeking grant funding to continue its independent research."With tens of millions of dogs traveling with their families every year, the use of pet travel safety restraints is at an all-time high," says Lindsey Wolko, founder and chairman of the Center for Pet Safety. "Safety advocates, travel associations and now law enforcement agencies are recommending ormandating the use of pet safety restraints. But how does the consumer know that the pet harnesses and crates actually protect their pet in the case of an accident? There are currently no official standards to measure performance success, nor are manufacturers required to test their products for this category of pet product. So who says 'safe' is safe?"While Wolko agrees that tethering or containing your pet may help reduce incidents of distracted driving, any other safety claims must be proven through the development of performance criteria and test methodologies. "Saying that these products prevent your pet from becoming a projectile in an accident is a potentially misleading statement. In our pilot study, the harnesses tested failed to keep the dog from becoming a projectile in a standardized crash simulation."The pilot study conducted by the Center for Pet Safety in 2011 indicated a 100% failure rate of a set of four popular animal travel harnesses crash tested according to the conditions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 for child safety seats. FMVSS 213 was selected as it is commonly referenced by some pet product manufacturers and pet safety advocates as a general standard.The harness size selection for the CPS pilot study was based on the American Kennel Club’s Most Popular Dog Breed List from 2010, where six of the top ten dog breeds were within the “large” harness category. A realistic crash test dog was specially designed, weighted and instrumented for data collection. In 2011 Lindsey Wolko, pet safety advocate and founder of The Center for Pet Safety, invested over $10,000.00 in scientific testing of pet harnesses used in automobile travel. A “blind” control group of pet travel harnesses was selected for the pilot study. Wolko hired an independent test laboratory, MGA Research Corporation in Manassas, Virginia, to perform unbiased scientific product testing.MGA Research Corporation performs safety compliance testing for FMVSS 213 child restraint systems for the U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.The goal of the testing was to determine if the products protected the companion animal from injury in a standardized crash simulation. A second round of quasi-static testing was completed to confirm the initial dynamic test results. A weighted and instrumented crash test dog was developed for the tests. No live animals were used for the tests.Procedures for the testing of companion animal restraints:A total of 12 restraints from major brands within the pet product industry were purchased from online vendor/manufacturer websites and delivered by independent carrier (UPS, USPS,etc) to the test laboratory. The restraints were received in new, unused condition with intact packaging. The restraints were handled only by laboratory personnel. Out of an initial sampling of 12 brands, four harnesses were selected as a "control group". Selection of the control group was based on perceived strength of the materials and design, associated marketing materials that indicated testing had been completed by the manufacturer and the reputation of the manufacturer in the pet travel product marketplace – similar to the way the consumer would select a product for purchase. Although not identified in the study, the control group harnesses are considered quality brands within the pet product industry and are widely marketed as safety devices for companion animal travel."We have re-sampled these products and performed follow-up testing to confirm our initial findings," says Wolko. "While we did not test all brands of harnesses in our initial pilot study, our sampling was broad enough for us to gain better insight regarding the expected performance of these products when tested to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 conditions. Their safety is not guaranteed and the buyer should beware."About the Center for Pet Safety:
The Center for Pet Safety was founded in 2011 and is a registered 501(c)3 research organization dedicated to companion animal and consumer safety. The idea for the Center for Pet Safety was developed from eight years of pet product industry and consumer research.In 2004 Lindsey Wolko’s dog, Maggie, was injured by a poorly designed safety harness designed for car travel. At that time, Wolko began to purchase pet travel products and try them with her dogs. This practice continued until she launched Canine Commuter in 2007.Through Canine Commuter, Wolko independently sampled and tested pet products for quality and performance. She purchased the products, ran them through consumer trials, and evaluated them for wear and tear, instructions, marketing, packaging and overall product performance. Over time, Wolko developed official product reports and a formal Consumer Trial Methodology. Products were given a rating based on their overall performance. The products that passed were included on Canine Commuter’s website. Products that failed were put on an unpublished “Watch” list – for follow-up with the manufacturer and future re-evaluation if product improvements were made.In 2010, Canine Commuter was contacted repeatedly by new pet product manufacturers to lend their product expertise to evaluate proposed product lines and provide feedback. This testing was formalized with the incorporation of the Center of Pet Safety in July 2011 and its recognition by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. The Center for Pet Safety is currently seeking grant funding to continue its independent research. Donations may be made through The Center for Pet Safety’s websitehttp://www.centerforpetsafety.org/donate-today/.For more information on the Center for Pet Safety, visit http://www.centerforpetsafety.org.
National Fire Dog Monument
To contact us Click HERE
Since 1877 American Humane Association has been at the forefront of virtually every major advance in protecting children, pets and farm animals from cruelty, abuse and neglect. Today we’re also leading the way in understanding the human-animal bond and its role in therapy, medicine and society. You can help make a difference, too. Support their life-saving work by visiting www.BeHumane.org today.About State Farm
State Farm and its affiliates are the largest provider of car insurance in the U.S. and is a leading insurer in Canada. In addition to providing auto insurance quotes, their 17,800 agents and more than 65,000 employees serve 81 million policies and accounts – more than 79 million auto, home, life and health policies in the United States and Canada, and nearly 2 million bank accounts. Commercial auto insurance, along with coverage for renters, business owners, boats and motorcycles, is also available. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is the parent of the State Farm family of companies. State Farm is ranked No. 43 on the Fortune 500 list of largest companies. For more information, please visit http://www.statefarm.com or in Canada http://www.statefarm.ca.
State Farm
(309) 826-7899
heather.paul.jaw8@statefarm.comMark Stubis
American Humane Association
(202) 677-4227
marks@americanhumane.org
America’s First “National Fire Dog Monument” Honoring Canine Heroes And Their Handlers to Begin 2,000-mile Journey to U.S. Capital
From June 21 – 28, 12-city Tour to Recognize Certified Arson Dog Teams
Each year billions of dollars in property damage and hundreds of lives are lost as a result of arson-related fires. Now, America is preparing to honor the two- and four-legged heroes who keep us, our families and our communities safe from this deadly threat.America’s first “National Fire Dog Monument” will take its place along with other venerable symbols of the nation’s gratitude in Washington, D.C. after making a 2,000-mile cross-country tour honoring firefighters, law enforcement professionals, and their invaluable arson dogs in communities across the United States. The 450-pound, seven-foot-high bronze sculpture of an arson dog and a firefighter will start its voyage in Denver, Colorado on June 21 and make its way through 12 major cities to its destination in the nation’s capital.The National Fire Dog Monument was sculpted by 22-year-old Colorado firefighter Austin Weishel, perhaps the youngest artist ever to have a monument erected in Washington, and pays tribute to the teamwork between humans and their canine companions in solving arson crimes. The sculpture, “From Ashes to Answers,” was commissioned by Jerry Means, an arson investigation agent with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Means’ own arson dog, Sadie, received national attention last year as the winner of the 2011 American Humane Association Hero Dog Awards™ in the category of Law Enforcement/Arson Dog and was a model for the sculpture.Arson dogs – also known as accelerant detection canines – are trained to sniff out and indicate traces of petroleum products such as gasoline or lighter fluid that might have been used to start a fire. The traces are sampled and sent to a lab for identification. To become certified for the work, the dogs and their handlers undergo many weeks of professional training and must pass yearly testing to maintain their certification.The National Fire Dog Monument tour is being sponsored by State Farm and American Humane Association. Since 1993 State Farm has provided funding for the acquisition and training of arson dogs in the United States and Canada, placing more than 300 arson dog teams in 44 U.S. states, 3 Canadian provinces, and the District of Columbia. American Humane Association works to ensure the welfare, wellness and well-being of children and animals, and to unleash the full potential of the bond between humans and animals to the mutual benefit of both. Each year the American Humane Association Hero Dog Awards™ honors ordinary dogs who do extraordinary things, and has a special category for Law Enforcement/Arson Dogs. More information is available atwww.herodogawards.org. In addition to its organizational support of the nonprofit set up by Mr. Means to make this project possible, American Humane Association helped secure the support of two generous Colorado philanthropists, Fred and Jana Bartlit, to help underwrite the cost of creating the statue.“America’s first line of defense is our nation’s arson dogs and we need to recognize their role in keeping us, our families, and our communities safe,” said Dr. Robin Ganzert, President and CEO of the 135-year-old American Humane Association. “The National Fire Dog Monument is a testament to the power and value of the human-animal bond. These animals are our friends, healers, our protectors, and aids — lending their special talents on behalf of us all. American Humane Association is so proud to share the story of these hero dogs with the larger community.”“This project puts an important spotlight on how committed men and women with the help of specially trained arson dogs work together to protect our nation and keep us safe,” said David Beigie, State Farm Vice President – Public Affairs. “We’re pleased to join the American Humane Association in supporting this effort especially given that Sadie and her handler, Jerry Means, are graduates of the State Farm Arson Dog Program.”To see the schedule for the National Fire Dog Monument Tour, please visitwww.arsondog.org/nfdm-route/ or http://www.americanhumane.org/national-firedog-mon.html.About American Humane AssociationSince 1877 American Humane Association has been at the forefront of virtually every major advance in protecting children, pets and farm animals from cruelty, abuse and neglect. Today we’re also leading the way in understanding the human-animal bond and its role in therapy, medicine and society. You can help make a difference, too. Support their life-saving work by visiting www.BeHumane.org today.About State Farm
State Farm and its affiliates are the largest provider of car insurance in the U.S. and is a leading insurer in Canada. In addition to providing auto insurance quotes, their 17,800 agents and more than 65,000 employees serve 81 million policies and accounts – more than 79 million auto, home, life and health policies in the United States and Canada, and nearly 2 million bank accounts. Commercial auto insurance, along with coverage for renters, business owners, boats and motorcycles, is also available. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is the parent of the State Farm family of companies. State Farm is ranked No. 43 on the Fortune 500 list of largest companies. For more information, please visit http://www.statefarm.com or in Canada http://www.statefarm.ca.
Media Contacts:
Heather PaulState Farm
(309) 826-7899
heather.paul.jaw8@statefarm.comMark Stubis
American Humane Association
(202) 677-4227
marks@americanhumane.org
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)