PAST CASES |
|
| Salk, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California Harrington v. Hovanec Peck v. Thompson Pereira v. Gleason (2008) Calaveras County Salk, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California Evans & Page is co-counseling with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in a suit brought by California taxpayers and physicians against The Regents of the University of California (The Regents) based on research conducted at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Standing in the case was premised upon California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 526a. For several years government inspectors have documented serious violations of the Animal Welfare Act at UCSF. In 2004, the USDA filed a complaint against UCSF before the Secretary of Agriculture alleging 75 violations of the Animal Welfare Act. In 2005, UCSF was fined $92,500, reportedly the fourth-largest settlement amount ever paid for violations of this nature. Under California law, taxpayers are entitled to sue if state resources are funding illegal activities and being used to pay the resulting fines. The lawsuit seeks equitable relief from the court to ensure that UCSF follows the Animal Welfare Act. “UCSF has broken the law in its mistreatment of dogs, monkeys, and other animals used in experiments,” says Dan Kinburn, general counsel for PCRM. “We are asking the court to halt these unlawful experiments and to appoint an independent monitor to ensure that any future research is in compliance with the Animal Welfare Act.” The San Francisco Superior Court sustained The Regents’ demurrer and dismissed our complaint. We appealed the decision, and in 2008 the First Appellate District upheld the lower court’s dismissal. (Appellate Opinion.) In 2009, the Supreme Court of California denied our Petition for Review with one judge dissenting and recommending that review be granted. Anti-SLAPP Peck v. Thompson (2008) San Francisco Superior Court Evans & Page represented an animal protection activist (referred to as Plaintiff herein) that was injured when trying to help an at-large dog that appeared to be starving and homeless. The Plaintiff saw a German Shepherd dog eating from a garbage can in her neighborhood. She attempted to find out who owned the dog, but was unable to lure the dog close enough, so she returned to her house to get dog treats and a leash. After an extensive chase, wherein the dog crossed many busy streets, the Plaintiff found the dog again in front of a house. She gave the dog a treat, and discovered from reading the dog’s tag that it was sitting in front of its owner’s house. A housekeeper came out of the house (referred to as Defendant 1 herein) an attempted to retrieve the dog, but when she did so, the Plaintiff observed signs of fear in the dog, and thinking that this was because of animal abuse, refused to hand the dog over, stating that she would only give it to the owner. The Plaintiff had been an animal keeper at the San Francisco Zoo for many years and was well aware of animal behavior. Defendant 1 grabbed the collar in an attempt to use physical force to get the dog inside. The Plaintiff asked Defendant 1 if she owned the dog and Defendant 1 admitted that she did not. The Plaintiff requested that Defendant1 call the police to resolve the issue. Finally, the Plaintiff told Defendant 1 that she would take the dog to the local shelter and that the owner could claim the dog there. Defendant 1 continued to yank on the dog’s collar, at times lifting the dog off the ground by its collar. The Plaintiff held onto the collar. Finally, Defendant 1 twisted the collar while the Plaintiff’s fingers were inside the collar. While twisting the collar, Defendant 1 gave the Plaintiff a wry smile. At that moment, the Plaintiff’s fingers “popped” while the collar twisted with the fingers caught therein. The result was multiple surgeries to Plaintiff’s hand and a permanent disfigurement wherein Plaintiff’s finger would never remain straight or have normal functionality. Along with the lay witnesses and parties to the incident, Evans & Page called two expert medical witnesses to discuss the surgeries, physical therapy and future loss of functionality. The defense called an expert animal behaviorist. The jury deliberated for one day and returned a Plaintiff’s verdict, but reduced the amount due to comparative fault. Plaintiff also recovered all of her costs, including expert witness fees due to an unaccepted California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer. The case addressed novel legal questions, including what rights do good Samaritan finders of dogs have against a non-owner third party. No California case had ever addressed this issue. Evans & Page were successful in getting the judge to instruct the jury as follows: An owner or an employee of an owner may not use unreasonable force to recover property from a person who has lawfully taken possession of the property even if the person wrongfully refuses to return it. Pereira v. Gleason (2008) Calaveras County In a five day jury trial, Evans & Page represented a person whose dog was hit by a speeding vehicle. Evans & Page was successful in securing a Plaintiff’s verdict; however the jury found comparative fault on the part of the Plaintiff. The case required extensive expert testimony, including a veterinarian, and a vehicle speed expert that analyzed skid marks from the scene of the accident and was able to deduce the speed of the vehicle before the driver depressed the brakes. The defendant driver (referred to as Defendant herein) was driving his Ford Mustang on a rural road when it was almost dark outside. Defendant was speeding and skidded for over 90 feet before coming into contact with Plaintiff’s dog. The speed limit at the scene of the impact was 25 m.p.h. Plaintiff’s speed expert testified that the Mustang was traveling at least 50 MPH immediately before the Defendant hit Plaintiff’s dog. Plaintiff had to take emergency measures to avoid being personally hit by Defendant’s car. Plaintiff’s dog was severely injured. After all of the witnesses testified, the court considered jury instructions and Plaintiff was successful in getting an instruction presented to the jury on punitive damages based on California Civil Code section 3340. The judge believed that there was adequate evidence to support a reasonable jury finding the Defendant liable for punitive damages. However, the jury ultimately did not award punitive damages, although they did find in favor of the plaintiff.
FOOTNOTES
|
