Burnell v. Soc'y
| Decision Date | 05 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-cv-05635-JSC |
| Parties | JILL BURNELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARIN HUMANE SOCIETY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
This action arises out of the Marin Humane Society's seizure of four horses from the property of Plaintiffs Jill and Alex Burnell ("Jill" and "Alex" and together "Plaintiffs") in December 2012 and January 2013 on the grounds that the animals were either severely malnourished or otherwise unhealthy. In the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), Plaintiffs bring suit against the Marin Humane Society, Marin County (the "County"), and a number of individual Defendants, including: the Marin Humane Society's CEO, four Marin Humane Society employees who act as humane officers, a member of the Marin Humane Society's board of directors who also serves as its authorized spokesperson, a veterinarian whose clients include Plaintiffs and the Marin Humane Society, two individuals who reported Jill Burnell to the Marin Humane Society, and Albert Burnham ("Burnham") the individual appointed as county hearing officer in administrative proceedings related to the seizure of the horses. (Dkt. No. 46.) Plaintiffs bring one count against all Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the six other counts against various groupings of Defendants arise under state tort law, including trespass upon land, trespass to chattels, conversion, portraying Plaintiffs in a false light, public disclosure of private facts and invasion of Plaintiffs' constitutional right to privacy, and intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Id.) The Court earlier dismissed the initial complaint finding that Plaintiffs failed to state a Section 1983 claim against any defendant and dismissed the claims against Burnham with prejudice on grounds of judicial immunity. Burnell v. Marin Humane Soc'y, No. 14-cv-05635-JSC, 2015 WL 4089844, at *2, 4 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2015).
Now pending before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay this case in favor of a pending state action; as with briefing regarding the initial complaint, the Marin Humane Society and all individual defendants filed one motion (referred to here as "Defendants' Motion"), and the County filed separately (the "County's Motion"). (Dkt. Nos. 47, 50.) Defendants contend that the FAC fails to cure the defects the Court identified in Plaintiffs' pleading and should be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, Burnham has moved for entry of judgment in his favor. (Dkt. No. 49.) Having considered the parties' submissions, and having had the benefit of oral argument on October 8, 2015, the Court rules as follows.
Before discussing the facts, an explanation of certain state laws and local regulations and ordinances regarding animal control and enforcing animal control regulations is helpful.
California Penal Code Section 597.1 makes it a misdemeanor for an animal owner to fail to provide proper care and attention to an animal and provides that when "a peace officer, humane society officer, or animal control officer" has "reasonable grounds to believe that very prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of [an] animal . . . the officer shall immediately seize the animal and comply with subdivision (f)." The "reasonable grounds to believe that very prompt action is required" is the equivalent of the exigent circumstances exception familiar to search and seizure law" that allows officers to act in "an emergency situation requiring swift action to save life, property, or evidence." Broden v. Marin Humane Soc'y, 70 Cal. App. 4th 1212, 1221 (1999). Subdivision (f), in turn, requires an administrative hearing regarding the proprietary of the animal seizure. Cal. Penal Code § 597.1(f).
Under California law, even absent such agreement, the Marin Humane Society is empowered to "enforce the provisions of laws of this state for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or arresting or prosecuting offenders thereunder, or preventing cruelty to animals." Cal. Corp.Code. § 14501.
The County entered a contract with the Marin Humane Society, a private 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that promotes animal rights, for the Marin Humane Society to provide animal-related services. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 9.) Specifically, the County has designated the Marin Humane Society as the "animal services agency" for the county, responsible for enforcing all state and local laws relating to the care, treatment, and impounding of animals, including issuing citations and making arrests, and vested in the Marin Humane Society authority to appoint suitable persons to act as animal service officers, who are deemed to be peace officers for the purpose of enforcing County animal control ordinances. Marin Muni. Code §§ 8.04.010, 8.04.110, 8.04.120. Defendants McKenney, Machado, Hill and Rogers were all Marin Humane Society employees during the relevant time period. (Dkt. No. 46 ¶¶ 13-17.)
The following facts are taken from the FAC and documents of which the Court takes judicial notice.1 Plaintiffs are a married couple who live in a trailer on a 35-acre parcel ofagricultural land they own in Marin County, California (the "Chileno Valley Road property"). (Dkt. No. ¶¶ 1-2.) Jill works as a livestock breeder of horses for the equestrian discipline known as "Hunters." (Id. ¶ 3.) By December 2012, she owned over 35 horses—including stallions, broodmares, and their offspring—at the Chileno Valley Road property. (Id. ¶ 3.) The property, which is not visible from a public road, is fenced-in meadowland with a water well and electronic pump. (Id. ¶ 2.) In October 2012, Plaintiffs added internal pasture fencing, three walk-in sun shelters, wind breaks, stallion paddocks, and storage buildings for feed and equipment. (Id. ¶ 2.) Of Jill's 35 horses living at the Chileno Valley Road property, breeding stallion Romantic Star and broodmares Devil's Sis (also known as Pookie) and Metsonized (also known as Nutsie)—whom Alex considered his pet—were particularly valuable. (Id.) Jill also had an established, economically advantageous client relationship with the owner of broodmare Lucky Karma. (Id.) Plaintiffs' complaint details Defendants' interference with these four horses.
In October 2012, Ricci made false reports to Rogers at the Marin Humane Society about the care and condition of the Plaintiffs' horses. (Id. ¶ 22.) Specifically, Ricci told Rogers—who at some point unsuccessfully tried to sell a horse to Jill (id. ¶ 17)—that Plaintiffs had moved their 40 to 50 breeding horses to Marin County without adequate food or shelter. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 35.) Ricci made these claims "for the purpose of redistributing [Plaintiffs'] horses to others." (Id.) Basedon Ricci's reports, the Marin Humane Society opened an investigation into Plaintiffs' horses. (Id. ¶ 22.) As part of that investigation, Rogers, Machado, and Hill met to discuss Plaintiffs twice weekly. (Id. ¶ 35.) Rogers and Machado then recruited Plaintiffs' neighbors to surveil Plaintiffs and report all vehicles and visitors to the property—in part, to harass and intimidate these visitors, including clients, veterinarians, and farriers caring for the horses—and to allow the Marin Humane Society access to their land to surveil Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36.)
In November, as the investigation continued, Rogers began posting information about Plaintiffs and her "case" against them on the internet, including on a bulletin board called the Chronicle of the Horse. (Id. ¶¶ 36-37.) Rogers announced that she would assist any individuals with business claims against Plaintiffs, that Jill had refused to speak with her, and that Plaintiffs' horses were without shelter at the Chileno Valley Road Property. (Id. ¶ 37.) Over the course of the investigation, Rogers and Hill published photos of holes in Plaintiffs' property contending, untruthfully, that the holes were used to hide human waste in violation of county zoning regulations. (Id. ¶ 18.) Rogers misreported to Plaintiffs' vendors that Plaintiffs were prohibited from purchasing horse feed supplies and had poor credit. (Id.) Rogers reported that Plaintiffs' horses were stripping trees on the property to feed themselves because they did not have adequate feed, when really the trees were trimmed to shelter the horses and the horses were in good health, not starving. (Id.) As a result of these internet postings, Jill's breeding business was declining. (Id. ¶ 38.) Rogers intent in spearheading this investigation was to redistribute Plaintiffs' horses to individuals whom Rogers believed would be better guardians of the animals. (Id. ¶ 37.)
The Marin Humane Society used the investigation against Jill to promote private fundraising for its animal rights activities. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs contend that the Marin Humane Society has a policy and practice of making false and reckless statements in order to create a pretext to seize animals from private persons. (Id.)
On December 18, 2012, Jill sold the stallion Romantic Star to a Georgia breeder for $100,000. (Id. ¶ 38.) Plaintiffs intended to use the money to improve the Chileno Valley Road Property. (Id.) That same day, Rogers surveilled Plaintiffs' property from a neighbor's. (Id.) Rogers waved Jill over, but she did not approach. (Id.) Rogers posted a "Notice of Correction" onPlaintiffs' fence, instructing Jill to contact the Marin Humane Society regarding inadequate shelter and thin, lame horses. (Id.) That day, Jill called Hill at the Marin Humane Society to complain about Rogers' internet activity. (Id.) Hill responded that he would come out to the Chileno Valley Road property on December 28 to speak with her. (Id.)
On December 19, 2012, veterinarian Paul McEvoy visited the Chileno Valley Road Property and examined Romantic Star to prepare the stallion...
To continue reading
Request your trial