Forwarded with permission. Rosemarie Davis Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 9:30 PM Subject: [AntelopeValleyDogFanciers] ACF FEDERAL COMPLAINT CALIFORNIA SB 861 Subject: ACF FEDERAL COMPLAINT CALIFORNIA SB 861 WE ASK YOU TO FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO ALL YOUR EMAIL LISTS From: AMERICAN CANINE FOUNDATION To: THE DOG FANCY, RESCUES AND DOG REGISTRIES Yesterday and today ACF lawyers filed a 9 count federal complaint against the state of California for passing SB 861 which calls for mandatory spay and neuter of specific breeds and breeding permits that can allow animal control to control your breeding of purebred dogs. ACF has three lawyers Greg Kohler (pit bull owner) , Jeff Shaver (Rottweiler owner) and Carol Chan(pit bull owner) representing ACF. ACF is claiming California sided with PETA and other radical extreme animal rights organizations and completely ignored canine experts. ACF has made it known that PETA wants the end to domestic pet ownership and its addressed in the federal complaint This is the most powerfull federal legislation to ever come about over the issues of breed specific legislation and we believe we have a strong chance to prevail. WE NEED TO SUPPORT OF THE DOG FANCY AND DOG REGISTRIES Without your support we can't fight this case giving it 100% No matter where you live SB861 can affect you if its not stopped, other states will adopt it in the future. Spay and neuter of dogs will not reduce the populations in shelters, for one thing a dog lives 12 years and the majority of dogs impounded are not there because of being intact. SB861 is not going to reduce shelter numbers, its supported by PETA and its intent is to exterminate dogs of all breeds to end domestic pet ownership. ACF REPRESENTS YOU THE RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNER AND YOUR RIGHTS !!! This case is being litigated for all the Dog Fancy in California, the United Kennel Club, American Kennel Club, American Dog Breeders Association and all responsible dog owners to ensure purebred dogs continue to exist and our rights are not taken from us. This lawsuit is to stop animal control agencies in California from requiring you to turn over your pedigrees for approval before you are allowed to reproduce canines. SUPPORT THE LEGAL ACTION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGAINST SB 861 Send you donations to: ACF 23969 NE State Rte 3 Suite G101 Belfair Wa. 98528 or pay pal at legislation2003@xxxxxxxxxxx ACF's new website at americancaninefoundationlaw.com will be published today at 5:00 pm PST ! C McCammon ACF Gregory J. Kohler - SBN 144063 ALBERS, BARNES & KOHLER, LLP 1401 Commercial Way, Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Telephone:(661) 716-3900 Facsimile: (661) 716-3899 Carolyn Chan - SBN 147978 2701 Del Paso Rd Ste. 130-#373 Sacramento, CA 95835 Attorneys for Plaintiff, AMERICAN CANINE FOUNDATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Docket No. ____ AMERICAN CANINE FOUNDATION, ) CASE NO. ) Plaintiff, ) ) COMPLAINT FOR vs. ) DECLARATORY RELIEF ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) BILL LOCKYER in his capacity ) as Attorney General ) and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________) Plaintiff, American Canine Foundation (ACF) hereby alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff, American Canine Foundation brings this action to seek a declaratory judgment against the State of California concerning the constitutionality and validity of California Senate Bill 861, now codified in California Food and Agricultural Code Section 31683 and California Health and Safety Code Sections 122330 and 122331. These statutes will hereafter be referred to collectively as SB 861. 2. Jurisdiction over this lawsuit is vested pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1331, which provides jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C § 1343 which provides redress for deprivations under color of State law or ordinances, secured by the Constitution of the United States, and 28 U.S.C § 1367 under the principles of supplemental jurisdiction. Jurisdiction also arises under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 42 U.S.C. 1982, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1988. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. SB 861 also violates the California State Constitution. 3. The action for declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C §§ 2201 & 2202 in conjunction with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 57. 4.This court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for Plaintiff's state law claims arising under the California Constitution, statutes and common law because Plaintiff's claims are so related to the claims within the court's original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 3 of the United States Constitution. 5. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C §1391(b) because SB 861 applies to the entire State of California and further a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district, including but not limited to the lobbying for SB 861, political activity related thereto and the signing of the bill. PARTIES 6. Plaintiff, American Canine Foundation is an organization based in the State of Washington, and has active members that are residents in the State of California. The American Canine Foundation is an interested party to these proceedings due to the legal issues presented in this action involving its members' rights and the protection of Constitutional rights and property. 7. The State of California is the entity that enacted SB 861. Bill Lockyer is the California Attorney General, who is the chief law officer of the state pursuant to California Constitution, Article 5 Section 13. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS 8. California State Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 861 on October 7, 2005. This law went into effect on January 1, 2006. SB 861 amended Section 31683 of the California Food and Agricultural Code (FAC section 31683) and added Sections 122330 and 122331 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC sections 122330 and 122331.) 9.FAC section 31683 is part of Chapter 9 of Division 14 of the Food and Agricultural Code, a series of twenty-eight (28) statutes designed to regulate vicious and potentially dangerous dogs, and the owners who fail to contain or control them. In the very first section of Chapter 9 (FAC section 31601) the Legislature acknowledged that the number and severity of dog attacks "are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs." This Chapter was completely devoid of discrimination against any dog breeds or mixed breeds; in fact as originally drafted, FAC section 31683 specifically stated that regulating dogs in a manner specific as to breed was not allowed under California law. 10. FAC section 31683 now reads as follows: Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. Except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, no program regulating any dog shall be specific as to breed. 11.SB 861 changed FAC section 31683's anti-discrimination law, and now specifically authorizes discrimination against certain dog breeds under HSC section 122331, which reads as follows: (a) Cities and counties may enact dog breed-specific ordinances pertaining only to mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding requirements, provided that no specific dog breed, or mixed dog breed, shall be declared potentially dangerous or vicious under those ordinances [Emphasis added.] (b) Jurisdictions that implement programs described in subdivision (a) shall measure the effect of those programs by compiling statistical information on dog bites. The information shall, at a minimum, identify dog bites by severity, the breed of the dog involved, whether the dog was altered, and whether the breed of dog was subject to a program established pursuant to subdivision (a). These statistics shall be submitted quarterly to the State Public Health Veterinarian. 12.In Health and Safety Code section 122330 the Legislature declares the stated intent behind SB 861: The Legislature finds and declares the following: (a) Uncontrolled and irresponsible breeding of animals contributes to pet overpopulation, inhumane treatment of animals, mass euthanasia at local shelters, and escalating costs for animal care and control; this irresponsible breeding also contributes to the production of defective animals that present a public safety risk. (b) Though no specific breed of dog is inherently dangerous or vicious, the growing pet overpopulation and lack of regulation of animal breeding practices necessitates a repeal of the ban on breed-specific solutions and a more immediate alternative to existing laws. (c) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to permit cities and counties to take appropriate action aimed at eliminating uncontrolled and irresponsible breeding of animals. 13.Cities and counties in California have passed or are getting ready to pass ordinances based on SB 861; this includes but is not limited to the city and county of San Francisco, Contra Costa County, Los Angeles County and Sacramento County. Under the authority provided by SB 861, as specifically contemplated by Defendant, State of California, specific breeds of dog, mixed breed dogs and their owners are now targeted for discrimination. "Pit bulls," a widely misunderstood and misused label, and their owners are the victims of this discrimination in San Francisco. Under Ordinance Number 268-05 it is now a misdemeanor to own any of the following dogs (with only limited exceptions) if they have not been spayed or neutered: a) The American Pit Bull Terrier; b) The American Staffordshire Terrier; c) The Staffordshire Bull Terrier; or d) Any dog displaying the physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds; or e) Any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics that conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club ("AKC") or United Kennel Club ("UKC"). This broad sweeping, vague language applies to a wide variety of dogs, both purebred and mixed. 14.Despite the convoluted and contradictory wording of SB 861, the legislative history and language establish that the true intent behind this law was to single out breeds or categories of canines (e.g. "pit bulls" in San Francisco) and clump them together as potentially dangerous or vicious without regard to science, logic, or any semblance of reason and without any consideration at all for the individual temperament of any dog unfortunate enough to be subject to this discriminatory law. 15.There is no scientific evidence that any breed of dog is inherently dangerous. This was proven in the State of Ohio in the case of City of Toledo v. Tellings, a case that Plaintiff helped bring to trial. In that case, the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Sixth District concluded that pit bulls are not inherently dangerous or vicious and struck down ordinances that discriminated against pit bulls as unconstitutional on three grounds. 16.The concept of forced surgical castration or hysterectomies of canines was and is supported by the radical animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA, an organization with known terrorist links, an organization that has reportedly killed over 10,000 dogs and cats at its Virginia based "shelter," and an organization that is dedicated to eliminating pets, worked very hard to help pass SB 861. 17.Standing in staunch opposition to SB 861 were Plaintiff, American Canine Foundation, major dog registries, professional canine behaviorists, dog owners, dog-related businesses, well-known scientific groups involved with canines and others. Defendant, the State of California, sided with the animal rights groups, including PETA and ignored SB 861's opponents. 18.SB 861 does not provide for any appeal process, and as a direct and foreseeable result, cities and counties either have not or will not provide for a constitutionally sound appellate process. For example, in San Francisco, a "staff member" of the San Francisco Animal Care and Control ("SFACC") will make the determination of whether a person owns a pit bull. The only "appeal" from that staff member's decision is an appeal to the "Director [of SFACC] "or his/her designee." That person's decision "is final," even if it is completely erroneous. 19. SB861 is in direct conflict with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) found in 7 U.S.C § 2131 and the rules promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture regarding breeding of dogs. SB 861 is also unconstitutional under both the Federal and California Constitution as more fully alleged in this complaint. FIRST CLAIM OF RELIEF FEDERAL ANIMAL WELFARE ACT PREEMPTS SB861 APPLICATION 20. The factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 21. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish standards regarding the handling, housing, and transportation of animals. These requirements provide rules regarding the licensing and registration of dealers, exhibitors and animal research facilities. (7. U.S.C. 2131 et seq.). Section 2.1(a)(3)(iii) titled Requirements and Application Exemption from Licensing exempts licensing for breeders who have a minimal number of dogs breeding. 22. SB861 and its application is in direct conflict with federal law because its application would allow municipalities to engage in mandatory spaying and neutering programs while the AWA rules allow for the breeding of minimal numbers of dogs without requiring licensing. The AWA further allows federal licensing of certain breeders. SB 861 and its broad empowerment of municipalities is in direct conflict with the AWA. SECOND CLAIM OF RELIEF SB861 VIOLATES FEDERAL AND STATE RIGHTS TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS 23. The factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 24. The Fourteenth Amendment requires states to provide due process to citizens and non-citizens within its jurisdiction. The Fourteenth Amendment also binds the Bill of Rights to the States. This Amendment states in part that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall...deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law..." 25.SB 861 violates procedural due process because the law allows for citizens to be subjected to criminal sanctions and loss of their property (often beloved family dogs) without a true right of appeal. SB 861 as applied can result in the killing of family pets, immediately, if the pet's owner does not comply with the government's forced sterilization order. 26.Further, the necessary proof to convict under this provision would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is impossible in application because neither animal control nor law enforcement can identify specific breeds beyond a reasonable doubt; this will lead to arbitrary and discriminatory criminal charges against dog owners. 27.SB861 violates the Federal and California Constitutions, which prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures because its application allows municipalities such as San Francisco to arbitrarily inspect the premises of a licensed dog owner to make sure that the standards required to receive a permit are met. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ THIRD CLAIM OF RELIEF SB 861 VIOLATES FEDERAL AND STATE RIGHTS TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION 28.SB 861 violates substantive due process and equal protection because it is breed specific and no breed of canine is inherently dangerous or vicious. SB 861 has and will continue to bring about arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory law enforcement and it serves no legitimate government purpose. The means the government adopts must be suitable to the ends in view, they must be impartial in operation and not unduly oppressive upon individuals, must have a real and substantial relation to their purpose, and must not interfere with private rights beyond the necessities of the situation. 29.Where a statute is challenged on nonprocedural grounds as violative of due process, the test is whether there is some fair, just and reasonable connection between the statute and the promotion of the health, comfort, safety and welfare of society. SB 861 will not promote any of these governmental goals, it serves no legitimate governmental purpose and should be struck down as unconstitutional. FOURTH CLAIM OF RELIEF SB861 AND ITS APPLICATION CONSTITUTES AN EX POST FACTO LAW 30. The factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 31. The United States Constitution Article I, §§ 9 and 10, prevents the federal and state governments from enacting ex post facto laws. 32.SB 861 as amended allows municipalities to criminalize dog owners who have not spayed or neutered their dogs, or owners who have not complied with any number of other rules, requirements or regulations imposed on them by municipalities pursuant to the broad grant of power and authority provided by SB 861. 33. SB 861 is an ex post facto law because it imposes penalties for an act committed before the law was passed and that was legal at the time without allowing an exemption for dogs that were purchased or owned prior to the law's implementation. FIFTH CLAIM OF RELIEF SB 861 VIOLATES CALIFORNIA'S CONSTITUTION 34. The factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 35. California Constitution Section 1 states that "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying or defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." 36. SB861 violates the California Constitution Article 1 § 1 because it allows municipalities to in effect restrict dog owners from possessing canines capable of reproduction and protecting the inherent value of such canines, which are considered property. 37. California Constitution Article 1 § 7(a) states that "a person may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws." 38. SB861 in its application allows municipalities such as the City of San Francisco to pass legislation which allow for the destruction of certain breeds upon the first violation of the statute without due process. 39. SB861 violates California Constitution Article 1 § 9 regarding ex post facto law because it imposes penalties for an act committed before the law was passed and that was legal at the time without allowing an exemption for dogs that were purchased or owned prior to the law's implementation. 40. SB861 violates California Constitution Article 1 Section 13 against unreasonable searches and seizures because its application allows municipalities such as San Francisco to arbitrarily inspect the premises of a licensed dog owner to make sure that the standards required to receive a permit are met. SIXTH CLAIM OF RELIEF THE ENACTMENT OF SB 861 VIOLATES THE NO TAKING CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 41. The factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 42. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and prohibits private property from being taken for public use without just compensation. The states are bound by the Fifth Amendment as made applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 43. Many California citizens have large financial and time investments in training, planning, showing and providing for their dogs. Californians, including those who participate in the purebred dog shows, and hobby breeders, will be deprived of their property interests if they are forced to neuter or sterilize their dogs. Once a breeding dog is surgically altered, its economic capacity is irreparably lost. This in effect is a taking. Moreover, an altered dog may not be shown in United Kennel Club, American Dog Breeders Association or American Kennel Club events. Therefore, owners of these expensive dogs would lose all rights and opportunities to show the dog, breed the dog, or further the line of a champion dog due to the mandatory altering. Hobby breeders that produce reasonably priced, well-bred dogs would be unable to offer these dogs to the public, which in turn will cause more defective dogs to be placed into the stream of commerce as underground breeders and puppy mill dogs take their place. 44.The ultimate goal of those supporting this legislation is the elimination of specific canine breeds and breeding. SEVENTH CLAIM OF RELIEF ENACTMENT OF LAW VIOLATES FEDERAL COMMERCE CLAUSE 45. The factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 46. The United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution (Commerce Clause) empowers the United States government to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes." 47. SB 861 substantially affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) held that Congress has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and any action that substantially affects interstate commerce. 48. The enactment and application of SB 861 in effect prohibits and eliminates the flow of business commerce as it relates to the sale of well-bred canines originating from California to the rest of the United States. Inasmuch as California is home to many canine kennels and many well-bred dogs originate from California, shipping canines outside the state would be adversely and significantly affected, if not eliminated, due to the mandatory altering of the breed specified. 49. The application of SB 861 would substantially affect interstate and intrastate travel because affected dog owners could no longer participate in sanctioned dog events, as many shows and events do not allow canines that have been altered. 50. Further, each county can enact a completely different ordinance, which could result in dog owners being in compliance with the law in one municipality and in violation of it in the next. EIGHTH CLAIM OF RELIEF FREEDOM OF CONTRACT 51.The factual allegations in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 52. The enactment and application of SB 861 infringes on the business of selling specific breeds of dogs in California and thus to the rest of the United States. NINTH CLAIM OF RELIEF SB 861 IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE 53.SB 861 was so poorly drafted it is impossible for the ordinary citizen to understand what it purports to do; it is being misused and misinterpreted by municipalities, and is leading and will continue to lead to unintended and unfortunate consequences including but not limited to the killing of family pets, false accusations against those who own breeds that "look like" breeds targeted pursuant to SB 861, arbitrary arrests and prosecutions of dog owners as a result of the inability of dog catchers and law enforcement to identify accurately the targeted breeds. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: 1. Assert jurisdiction over this lawsuit; 2. Declare SB 861 unconstitutional, which amended Section 31683 of the California Food and Agricultural Code and added Sections 12330 and 12331 of the California Health and Safety Code; 3. Allow Plaintiff to proceed to trial 4. An award in favor of Plaintiff for its damages and future damages, expenses, costs, fees and other disbursements associated with the filing and maintenance of this action, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. 1982, 1983 and 1988 or other applicable law; 5. That the Court exercise continuing jurisdiction during the enforcement of relief; 6. Any other relief that this Court deems just and proper. DATED: March ____, 2006 ALBERS, BARNES & KOHLER, LLP By___________________________ Gregory J. Kohler, Attorney for Plaintiff, American Canine Foundation [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] a.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ============================================================================ POST is Copyrighted 2006. All material remains the property of the original author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE PROSECUTED. For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx VISIT OUR WEBSITE - URL temporarily deleted due to AOL issues ============================================================================