Last updateFri, 04 Jul 2014 5pm

Breaking News

Commerce City, CO shooting - PBLN Publishes EASE Booklet for Advocates of Police Training for Dog Encounters

PBLN has covered the Commerce City, Colorado shooting in depth, both in print and on the air. The video that prompted the outcry can be seen below. Be forewarned, though, you are going to be watching an unjustified shooting of a dog already on a catchpole.

Video of last four minutes leading up to the shooting  



PBLN Publishes "EASE" Booklet

In response to what seems to be an inordinate number of recent unjustified canine shootings, PBLN has put together a booklet for advocates that will hopefully help start a dialogue with law enforcement about the need for police training.  The booklet discusses the recent verdicts against police departments across the country for the unjustified use of deadly force against dogs. From a fiscal point of view, it is in the police department's best interest to initiate training to avoid costly lawsuits and the use of taxpayer money to defend them. It is also good public relations for the police, and meets with the public perception of dogs as part of the family.  The booklet can be downloaded below:

EASE Booklet  


The Galt Shooting Tragedy - Lesson Learned?

Animal Control to Be Furnished with Bullet Proof Vests

The news spread quickly last week as Sacramento media outlets reported that an Animal Control Officer had been slain in the line of duty.  Soon, social media had made the story a topic on nearly every animal welfare group’s page.

The facts were slowly released that the alleged gunman, Joseph Corey, 65, had been evicted from his Sacramento home the previous day.  Corey reportedly contacted Animal Control requesting their help with his six dogs.  He had nowhere to take the dogs and no one to help him.

A bank official and Sacramento County Animal Control Officer, Roy Marcum, met Gant at 633 First Street on the afternoon of November 28, 2012.  Marcum knocked on the door only to be killed by a shotgun blast through the closed door.

Read more: The Galt Shooting Tragedy - Lesson Learned?

Fiala v. Dogs Deserve Better - Case Dismissed!

Fiala Dismisses Her Claims Against DDB


Ms. Fiala apparently dismissed her claims against DDB yesterday.  It is a lot more complicated legally than what it seems.  Fiala dismissed those claims ruled upon by the court-forgery, written contract and conversion with prejudice.  This means they are forever barred from being brought again.

But the other claims, implied contract and deceptive trade practices, were dismissed without prejudice, meaning these claims can be filed again, as long as it is before the statute of limitations runs.

It appears no settlement efforts were made by Fiala.  One can only speculate what the thinking was behind these dismissals. It does end the current litigation, and the remaining claims seem weak to me. Perhaps this was a way to bow out gracefully.  

There was nothing DDB could do to prevent this move.  It is totally within the discretion of the Plaintiff in a case as to when they choose to dismiss. However, there is a rule that it requires agreement of the Defendant or a Court Order, neither of which were secured here.

So, Court's out! For now.

Fiala Loses Motion to Vacate Anti-Harassment Order

Fiala Motion to Vacate Anti-Harassment Order Denied


Court Finds No Excusable Neglect or Meritorious Defense

When last we left this litigation, DDB's Motion for Summary Judgment on the contract and conversion issues was granted.  Fiala, however, failed to attend the Anti-Harassment Motion filed by Page and an Anti-Harassment Order was entered (previously reported here). Fiala moved to set aside the order, on the basis that she thought it had been continued, see her Motion here.  DDB filed a reply to her Motion here, in which they argued that Fiala knew or should have known about the hearing, and that even after the Court entered its order, she continued to villify DDB's attorney, calling for his disbarment on this very site.  Fiala moved to strike, and filed a reply affidavit, arguing that the entrance of an anti-harassment order against her could result in problems with her medical license, which can be read here

The court denied Fiala's Motion in this order.  The court felt that since Fiala was the one to continue the Summary Judgment hearing, the onus was on her to determine whether the anti-harassment hearing was continued as well. There was no excusable neglect.  In addition, the court determined that Fiala did not have a meritorious defense.  She continued to contact the DDB representative despite a letter from DDB's attorney telling her not to. Thus the anti-harassment order will remain in effect until July of next year.

The court granted DDB's attorney fees for this hearing in the amount of $1625. This amount plus attorney fees granted with respect to prior hearing brings Fiala's bill for DDB's fees to a grand total of $3393.

Settlement anyone?