Page 1
C.A. Affirms Preliminary Injunction Barring Sales, Advertising, by Puppy Mill
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district yesterday upheld a preliminary injunction barring a family that ran a puppy mill from continuing its operations in light of its outrageous conduct.
Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. of Div. Eight authored the opinion. It affirms an order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Barbara Marie Scheper barring sales or advertising of puppies, pending resolution of the litigation, by Trina and Rick Kenney and their children Jezriel Kenney and Elijah Kenney.
Wiley wrote:
“The trial court had a basis for finding the Kenneys posed a continuing menace to the public at large. The preliminary proof was that the Kenneys persisted in their routine. As Humane Society Officer Padilla reported, Trina Kenney said, ‘[Y]ou will not stop us from selling puppies.’ As a preliminary remedy pending trial, closing this puppy mill was in the public interest.”
The plaintiffs were nine purchasers of puppies, who sued under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law, and the Caru Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which sought injunctive relief to bar violations of anti-cruelty laws.
|
|
|
Pictured are plaintiff Jessica Joy, her three children, and their puppy, who died shortly after they purchased her. |
Scheper’s Ruling
Scheper said on July 8, 2021, in granting the preliminary injunction:
“The evidence Plaintiffs present in support of the motion shows a consistent pattern. Plaintiffs’ primary evidence is the testimony from Jessica Loy Brandon Swigart, and Anthony V. Paradise Junior (Purchaser Plaintiffs). The testimony and experiences of each of these Plaintiffs are similar and are consistent with Plaintiffs’ claims in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). Purchaser Plaintiffs testify that Defendants sell the puppies to families who respond to online advertisements promising healthy, purebred Labradoodle and Goldendoodle puppies of at least eight weeks in age….
“The evidence shows that Defendants’ online advertisements were either false or misleading. Some of the puppies were dyed a different color than their natural fur color to match the online advertisements and in the case of Jessica Loy, the puppy was a different sex than what was advertised….Each of the Purchaser Plaintiffs were told that the puppies were immunized and were in good condition. However, the evidence shows that this was false because within the first day each of the puppies sold to the Purchaser Plaintiffs began to grow ill and their condition would rapidly deteriorate until they died….Finally, when purchasers informed Defendants of the poor health of the puppies. Defendants engaged in a pattern of insults and obstructive behavior including using racial slurs.”
She declared:
“[A]n injunction will prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and future consumers who may wish to purchase puppies from Defendants. The hardships to the public and future consumers who might be misled weighs in favor of granting the injunction.”
Wiley’s Opinion
In his opinion affirming the order, Wiley said:
“The trial court had an ample basis for concluding the Kenneys had represented the puppies were healthy when in fact they were not: all rapidly died.
“When the puppies you sell immediately get sick and die, the plaintiffs at trial probably will be able to show your claims about good health were false. That is all the Act requires in this situation.”
He found the evidence revealed the falsity of the Kenneys’ contention that it was not they who were selling the puppies. The jurist commented:
“The Kenneys put themselves in an intractable situation by pursuing an identity defense: difficulties arise when people insist “we are not doing that, but if you stop us from doing that it will cause us serious problems.”
“The trial court properly found the public would be harmed if the Kenneys continued selling unhealthy dogs to other families seeking pets.”
The complaint says, with reference to the lead plaintiff (with paragraph numbering omitted:
Plaintiff Jessica Loy and her family (husband
and three children…) purchased a puppy. “Penny”, from the Kenneys
on March 14. 2018. Jessica had been promising her children a dog for years, and
her son saved up his money to pay for half of the puppy.
Jessica responded to an advertisement on
Recycler.com for a “9-12-week-old” female Goldendoodle, and met one of the
Kenney family members in a Tijuana Tacos parking lot in Claremont. California.
Jessica paid $1,000 cash for the puppy.
$600 of which was money earned by her son who had been sweeping hair at a local
barbershop to raise money for the puppy.
At the time of purchase. Jessica was given
an “immunization record” in the form of a small pamphlet that listed the
vaccines Penny had been given. The original Recycler.com advertisement also
stated that the dog was immunized and dewormed.
On the drive home. Penny began having
diarrhea. Once The Loys arrived home, they discovered that Penny was actually a
male. The Loys decided to settle for a male since they already stalled bonding
with him. and renamed him “Bear”.
Bear refused to eat his dog food or drink
water, so The Loys took him to the veterinarian, who administered fluids and
told The Loys to continue monitoring him.
The following day, Bear was still sick,
with extreme vomiting and diarrhea. The Loys decided to give him a bath, and
upon doing so. discovered that his fur that been dyed. His actual color was an
off-white, and he had been dyed brown.
The following day, the Loys took Bear back to
the veterinarian, where he was diagnosed with canine parvovirus and distemper.
The veterinarian strongly recommended that they euthanize Bear as his condition
was too severe for treatment. The Loys made the difficult and heartbreaking
decision to euthanize Bear.
The veterinarian also told The Loys that
Bear was closer to four weeks old when they purchased him, not “9-12 weeks” as
The Kenney Family had told them.
The Loys spent close to $1,000 on medical
bills for Bear, in addition to the SI.000 purchase price. In addition to
monetary damages. The Loys have suffered emotional trauma from the entire
experience.
The veterinarian advised The Loys to
thoroughly and professionally disinfect their home, to get rid of all traces of
the distemper and parvovirus, as it is highly contagious. The Loys spent
hundreds of dollars doing so.
Another family, according to the complaint, spent about $9,000 on a puppy’s medical bills. The puppy died.
The case is Joy v. Kenney, B315313.
Representing the plaintiffs are Gary A. Praglin and Theresa E. Vitale of the Santa Monica firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, along with Isabel F. Callejo-Brighton and Christopher Berry of Animal Legal Defense Fund in Cotati, California. Acting for the Kenneys are Richard M. Ewaniszyk of Victorville, Christopher D. Lockwood of the San Bernardino firm of Arias & Lockwood; and Donald W. Reid of Fallbrook.
Praglin, in response to an inquiry, yesterday disclaimed knowledge as to whether any criminal proceedings against the Kenneys have been instituted or are contemplated. He noted that trial of the action is slated for Dec. 12.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company