Having been entangled in the Los Angeles court system for the past three years, on top of budget cuts no less, I can tell you that it is very difficult to find “justice” in the Justice System.
For those who haven’t been following our , my husband Troy and I adopted our dog Stitch years ago, only to later have the guy who claims to have previously owned him (but has no proof) sue us for over $25,000. Last year, we went to trial. The guy didn’t win a dime from us, but the judge did award him custody- due to a 200 year old law called the Lost Property Statute. “If you left your bicycle at the beach,” the judge said, “and then three weeks later you saw someone else riding it, you’d expect them to return your bike to you.” And we responded with the obvious. “Stitch is not a bicycle. He is a member of our family. And we would never leave him abandoned on a road like this guy apparently did.” We lost, then appealed, and here we are a year later.
Last Wednesday, July 11th, the appellate division of Los Angeles Superior court filed a preliminary ruling, declaring that they are upholding the Chatsworth Superior court ruling (meaning we LOST again) due to a technicality in paperwork (the fact that there is no court reporter record, because in lower jurisdiction hearings- there is no court reporter!)
In appeals you can not re-try your case, therefore, a court reporter transcript was not necessary for appeals. Your only way of winning is to prove that the law was misapplied in your ruling. Our attorney Jill Ryther filed a beautiful, comprehensive brief proving the Lost Property Statute was misapplied in our case- as it should not apply to family pets. She used numerous other cases to support her argument. Basically the judges refused to even read it. They knew a month ago, when they postponed our first hearing date, that we had no court reporter. Why did they delay our case, only to throw it out later? My opinion- this is politics, plain and simple.
Every judge we’ve dealt with (and there have been four, total) has tried to sidestep this issue. Overturning a centuries-old law is a controversial, boat-rocking move, and none have been bold enough to take it on.
We were terribly depressed last week. But then a miraculous thing happened. People all over the country began contacting us, supporting us. Don’t give up! They said. We’ve got your back. Donations for our legal fund began to come in. People sent photos of their pets in solidarity with Stitch (now posted on Stitchy’s facebook page). We knew then that we could, and must, continue to fight. People all over the world are invested in this. A win for Stitch is a win for pet owners everywhere.
Shortly after, Fox 11 news contacted us and wanted to feature our story. On Friday, July 13, we were on the news. See link to watch our segment (and hear Stitchy snoring through it). Also, the L.A. Times contacted me and said they will be running our story.
Our attorney is filing a writ to the higher court- the Federal Appeals Court. Stitch is currently in our possession and that is where he will stay. We will never give up on him!
We want pet lovers everywhere to know that their dogs and cats can not be ripped from their families by some stupid antiquated law which equates our dogs to property, like a bicycle. Our dogs are not property! Troy and I will continue to fight until the courts hear us.
I am very proud of the job my attorney did. Her briefs were powerful, and she was amazing in court. She is whip smart, and cares deeply about the plight of animals. And there are few attorneys in Los Angeles who specialize in Animal Law. Actually I think there are three, and I'm assuming you aren't one of them?
You needed an experienced litigator, not some neophyte. Your case was lost on civil procedure, not the law. You could have exposed the ownership issue on a Summary Judgment motion and won there, or on a hearing for a Preliminary Injunction, which would have put you in Unlimited jurisdiction. These hearings would have educated your judge and his research clerk as well. These hearings also would have put the Plaintiff is a more malleable settlement position.
I do have an issue with you (Hollye) letting your dogs off leash on the trails. I take my German Shephards with me hiking in the hills on he trails behind my house. They are ALWAYS on leash but we come across people like you every time. There are leash laws for a reason. I have been bitten by off leash dogs charging my dogs. Please keep your dogs leashed.
The case has been tried and there is no record of the trial, so there is little I could do. I have been in practice since 1982 and have a long history of litigation experience in construction, employment, business, real estate, and family law as well as extensive law and motion practice. I regularly handle cases in the valley courts as well.
When you post a blog you do so to elicit comments. Hollye's posting made no sense to me coupled with my review of the Appellate Division's tenative on July 11. It appeared to me that she was being misinformed on a myriad of issues, so I rightfully commented and gave her direction. She appears to be enamored with an attorney and she needs to hear suggestions about getting a more experienced one as Ms. Raschella suggested. I am just trying to fathom what her attorney did, so I can discern some type of remedy here. Sometimes you need a second opinion of an experienced indiviudal. Clearly, I would like to see the dog with Hollye's family, but it is frustrating when they make the wrong decisions in rederssing this issue. Hollye should refer to Stich as a 'he' and not an 'it.' to make her point as well.
Finally, when a story is published in a public forum such as Patch, the author tacitly agrees to expose his/her ideas to public scrutiny. Inviting someone to "shut up" is undoubtedly the least constructive contribution to the dialog one could make.
For those of you who are critical of our actions, I invite you to do what you feel is right in your own lives, and we will do what we feel is right. We don't want to engage in any negativity or war or words. We just want to keep our dog safe, and help others who adopt pets, so they never have to go through this. Peace to all.
We used to hike on private property where we took our dogs on leash, and then let them off for portions of the trail so they could play and romp. We rarely saw other people or dogs, but when we did, we put our dogs back on leash. Our dogs were friendly and have never attacked other dogs. ( although I have had my dogs attacked while on leash, by other dogs off leash). We never let Stitch off leash. He is too small and vulnerable. Thanks for the support.
In reading all of these comments, one thing comes to mind STITCH! I am behind you 100%, I am not able to give monetarily I am here to support you & your family completely!! If you could post here when and where you will need support next, I am sure we will all be there for you, your family & of course STITCH, he is so blessed to have such a wonderful family to love and care for him,, I BEG YOU PLEASE DON'T EVER GIVE UP HOLLYE, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!! God Bless you and your family!!! The ex-owner will get what is coming to him!! Its called Karma!!
No offense intended but if I had a nickel for every person who said their dogs are "friendly" well I'd be really well off. Friendly off leash dogs are the worst. They run up to the on leash dogs. It's a nightmare. please for the safety of all keep your dogs on their leash. Everyone.