- Created on 25 May 2010
- Last Updated on 17 March 2014
- Written by Fred M. Kray
- Hits: 3017
Injunctive relief is used in dangerous dog cases in both emergency situations to prevent euthanasia and to stop the government from enforcing an unconstitutional statute or ordinance.
Elements for Injunctive Relief in Florida
1. Irreparable harm unless the status quo is maintained;
2. No adequate remedy at law;
3. Substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
4. The injunction will serve the public interest.
complaints requesting injuctive relief
Schoendorf v. Spokane - Complaint For Emergency and Injunctive Relief
Stefaniw v. Marion County - Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Louisville Kennel Club v. Louisville County Metro Government, 2009 WL 3210690 (W.D. Ky) - Complaint
applicable case law
Stefaniw v. Marion County, 10-605-CC (2010) - Filed to enjoin Marion County from enforcing an unconstitutional ordinance which is still pending.
Pediatric Pavillion v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 883 So2d 927 (5th DCA 2004) - not involving dangerous dogs, but holds that even if an entity stops operating the facility that forms the basis of the injunction, injunctive relief can go forward.
Sea Breeze Video v. Federico, 648 So2d 226 (2nd DCA 1994) - does not involve dangerous dogs, but it does hold that injunctions can be granted by the county court, which is where you often find yourself based on the value of the dog.
County of Pasco v. Riehl, 635 So.2d 17 (S.Ct. Fla. 1994) - started as an action for injunctive relief to stop the County of Pasco from enforcing an unconstitutional dangerous dog state statute. The lower court, in Pasco v. Reihl, 620 So.2d 229 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1993), found the state statute unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the county from enforcing it. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed, stating that the failure to provide the owner an opportunity to be heard rendered the state statute unconstitutional.
Schiller v. Miller, 621 So.2d 481 (4th DCA 1993) - not a dangerous dog case, but crucial because it holds that injunctions may not be granted for the retention of personal property unless it is found to be unique or otherwise peculiar, and unless the plaintiff demonstrates that there is no adequate remedy of law. In my opinion, dogs, sentient beings, meet this requirement.
Louisville Kennel Club v. Louisville County Metro Government, 2009 WL 3210690 (W.D. Ky) - Was a sucessful injuctive relief action in which the court enjoined the defendants from enforcing the provisions in the animal control ordinance that would allow the government to deprive the dog owners of their property by requirng a bond before an adversarial hearing.
Daskalea v. Washington Humane Society, 480 F.Supp 2d 16 (USDC DC 2007) - Class action suit with state law and a § 1983 claim. Injunctive and declaratory relief pled. All pets had been seized under the anti-cruelty laws, impounded, sterilized all without the consent or knowledge of their owners.There was no opportunity given to the owners to contest the seizure. The court found the Humane Society acted under color of state law, that the Animal protection law violated due process by enforcing an unconstitutional statute. The statute failed to establish reasonable and articulate standards for the seizure of pets, failed to provide a due process hearing to contest seizure, set reasonable and articulable standards for the release of seized pets, prevent involuntary medical treatment, and prevent arbitrary fines. The statute in question allowed the Humane Society sole discretion in its decesion to seize and animal, make the decision at to whether it was neglected, and to put a lein on the animal for the cost of its care. Nor is the owner able to provide instruction regarding nourishment and care of the animal while being held. The court allowed Plaintiff's claim for diminution of value to her dog and her claim for conversion.
Schoendorf v. Spokane, 2007-02-03992-3 (2007) - A copy of the Complaint for Injunctive Relief based on failure to provide due process under the rationale of Mansour v. King.