Lock v. Kern County, California In 2004, the first lawsuit filed under the Hayden Act, Petitioner Patricia Lock, represented by California attorney, and
Animal Rights and Hayden Act expert, Kate Neiswender, sought an
injunction prohibiting
Kern County, California from violating the act by euthanizing companion animals prior to the expiration of the holding period and engaging in other prohibited conduct. The court found Kern County Animal Control to be in violation of the Hayden Act and required the shelters to adopt and follow acceptable guidelines such as working with rescue groups to assure more animals will leave the shelter alive, basic cleaning and animal care husbandry be followed.
Johnson v. Kings County, California In 2007, a second lawsuit was filed under the Hayden Act by Petitioner Kara Johnson, represented by California attorney, Kate Neiswender. The case began with a shelter audit that found that the county-run animal control was not keeping accurate records, scanning for microchips, providing veterinary care to animals, nor following the minimum hold time of the Hayden Act. The lawsuit later resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
Jacie Conaway v. San Bernardino County, California In 2007, Petitioner Jacie Conaway, represented by California attorney, and
Animal Rights and Hayden Act expert, Okorie Okorocha, filed a similar action against
San Bernardino County, California. The lawsuit later resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.They withdrew the lawsuit after they reviewed the county's response. Resolution was obtained by the petitioner withdrawing the complaint and litigation filed against the County.
Rich Mc Lellan, M.D. v. Mendocino County, California In 2007, Rich Mc Lellan, M.D., the President of the California Chapter of the League of Humane Voters, represented by California attorney, and
Animal Rights and Hayden Act expert, Okorie Okorocha filed an action against
Mendocino County, California titled Mc Lellan v. County of Mendocino to have a statute enacted by the County, known as "Sec. 10.24.010 Voluntary Surrender of Animal for Euthanasia: Not Impoundment" which contradicted the Hayden Act, and allowed for the unlawful euthanization of companion animals, declared invalid by the
Mendocino County, California Court. The
Mendocino County, California County Council repealed the statute before the case went to trial: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS – SUMMARY/ACTION MINUTES – JUNE 19, 2007 PAGE 454 AGENDA ITEM NO. 10A – INTRODUCTION AND WAIVE THE READING OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING MENDOCINO COUNTY CODE SECTION 10.24.010 IN ITS ENTIRETY – COUNTY COUNSEL Presenter/s: Ms. Jeanine B. Nadel, County Counsel, introduced that matter, noting that this ordinance section directly contradicts State law (Food and Agricultural Code Sections), recommending it be repealed in its entirety. Board Action: Upon motion by Supervisor Delbar, seconded by Supervisor Colfax, and carried (4, with Supervisor Wattenburger absent); IT IS ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors introduces and waives the reading of the ordinance repealing Mendocino County Code Section 10.24.010 in its entirety ==References==