Santa Paula Animal Rescue Ctr., Inc. v. Cnty. of L. A.

95 Cal.App.5th 630

313 Cal.Rptr.3d 566

SANTA PAULA ANIMAL RESCUE CENTER, INC. et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent.

B318954

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

Filed September 18, 2023

Sullivan & Triggs, Sheldon Eisenberg and Nairi Shirinian for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Office of the County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jennifer A.D. Lehman, Assistant County Counsel, and Armita Radjabian, Deputy County Counsel; Carpenter, Rothans & Dumont, Jill Williams, Los Angeles and John J. Stumreiter for Defendant and Respondent.

MOOR, J.

Plaintiffs and appellants Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center, Inc. (SPARC) and Lucky Pup Dog Rescue (Lucky Pup) (collectively Appellants) appeal a judgment of dismissal following the trial court's order sustaining, without leave to amend, defendant and respondent County of Los Angeles's (the County) demurrer to Appellants’ petition for writ of mandate.

Appellants contend that the Hayden Act and, more specifically, Food and Agriculture Code ¹ section 31108 and similar provisions² impose on the County a ministerial duty to: (1) release a dog or other shelter animal³ to a requesting animal adoption or rescue organization with Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) status prior to euthanasia without first determining whether the animal has behavioral problems or is adoptable or treatable, and (2) release the aforementioned animal to the requesting animal rescue or adoption organization without requiring the organization to meet qualifications additional to having Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) status.

We conclude that the demurrer was improperly granted, because the County lacks discretion to withhold and euthanize a dog based upon its determination that the animal has a behavioral problem or is not adoptable or treatable. However, the County has discretion to determine whether and how a non-profit organization qualifies as an animal adoption or rescue organization. We reverse the judgment of dismissal, and we order the trial court to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Writ of Mandate

Appellants filed a petition for writ of mandate against the County containing the following allegations:

Appellants are nonprofit corporations under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3). Appellants operate no-kill shelters dedicated to saving the lives of stray and abandoned animals, providing them with care and shelter, and re-homing the animals.

The County is charged with preserving and protecting animal and public safety, and with enforcing all state and local laws governing the animal shelter system.

Section 31108, subdivision (b)(1), which is part of the Hayden Act, imposes a mandatory ministerial duty on the County to release to an Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) animal rescue or adoption organization any impounded dog scheduled for euthanasia, unless the dog is irremediably suffering from a serious illness or severe injury. The Hayden Act imposes the same release requirements for other shelter animals.

The County routinely fails to perform this duty by enforcing a policy of only allowing Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) animal rescue or adoption organizations that the County pre-approves as adoption partners to redeem animals scheduled for euthanasia. In August 2021, the County denied a request from Lucky Pup to obtain a dog named Derek, who was impounded at the County's Downey Animal Care Center and scheduled for euthanasia, because Lucky Pup was not a pre-approved adoption partner. In September 2021, the County denied for the same reason Lucky Pup's request for another impounded animal scheduled for euthanasia.

The County also routinely fails to perform its duty to redeem animals scheduled for euthanasia by denying the requests of Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) animal rescue or adoption organizations that are pre-approved adoption partners, based on the County's determination that certain animals have behavioral problems. In February 2020 and June 2021, the County denied pre-approved adoption partner SPARC's requests to redeem dogs named Gunnar and Winston from the Agoura Animal Care Center because of behavioral problems. Both dogs were subsequently euthanized. The County's failure to comply with the Hayden Act has resulted in unnecessarily high rates of euthanasia.

Appellants sought to compel the County to comply with the ministerial duties imposed by the Hayden Act, which Appellants argued require the County to release any shelter animal scheduled for euthanasia to an Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) animal rescue or adoption organization without further qualification unless that animal is irremediably suffering from a serious illness or severe injury.

Demurrer

The County filed a demurrer to the petition for writ of mandate arguing that the Hayden Act does not preclude its use of standards (beyond Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) status) to qualify particular organizations as animal rescue or adoption organizations. The County also argued that it is not precluded from refusing to release animals with behavioral problems, because the Hayden Act excludes animals with behavioral problems from being adoptable.

The County asserted that there is no mandatory duty to release animals to any entity that claims to be an Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) animal rescue or adoption organization. Although the word "shall" is often considered mandatory, in the case of section 31108, the County must use discretion to carry out its duty. Section 31108 provides that the County "may" enter into cooperative agreements with animal rescue or adoption organizations, which also contemplates that there is discretion to be exercised in the County's statutory duties. Moreover, the statutory scheme must be read as a whole. Section 17005, subdivision (a), Civil Code section 1834.4, subdivision (a), and Penal Code section 599d, subdivision (a), all state that it is California's policy that no adoptable animal should be euthanized. These three sections define adoptable animals, in part, as animals that "have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet[.]" It would be absurd to interpret section 31108, subdivision (b)(1), to require the County to transfer to non-profit agencies an animal that is not adoptable.

Appellants opposed the demurrer, arguing that the language of section 31108, subdivision (b)(1), imposes a mandatory duty on the County to release dogs prior to euthanasia, and the Hayden Act does not give the County any discretion in carrying out that duty. The Hayden Act extends this same duty to other shelter animals. The Legislature has set forth only three express exceptions to the requirement to release shelter animals, and there is no exception for animals with behavioral problems.

The trial court sustained the County's demurrer without leave to amend, and later dismissed Appellants’ entire action with prejudice.

DISCUSSION

This appeal requires us to answer two questions. First, does the County have discretion to refuse to release, and then to euthanize, a dog deemed to have behavioral problems when release has been requested by a non-profit animal adoption or rescue organization? Second, does the County have discretion to determine and impose requirements for organizations that claim to be animal rescue or adoption organizations to qualify as such, beyond simply ensuring that the organizations are non-profits under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code ? We conclude that the Hayden Act vests the County with discretion to determine which organizations qualify as animal adoption or rescue organizations, but that once such organizations are qualified, the County has no discretion to refuse to release, and then to euthanize, a dog after a qualified organization has requested release of the animal.

Legal Principles & Standard of Review

"A writ of mandate ‘may be issued by any court ... to compel the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station ....’ ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, subd. (a).) The petitioner must demonstrate the public official or entity had a ministerial duty to perform, and the petitioner had a clear and beneficial right to performance .... [¶] Generally, mandamus is available to compel a public agency's performance or to correct an agency's abuse of discretion when the action being compelled or corrected is ministerial. [Citation.] ‘A ministerial act is an act that a public officer is required to perform in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority and without regard to his [or her] own judgment or opinion concerning such act's propriety or impropriety, when a given state of facts exists. Discretion ... is the power conferred on public functionaries to act officially according to the dictates of their own judgment. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Mandamus does not lie to compel a public agency to exercise discretionary powers in a particular manner, only to compel it to exercise its discretion in some manner." ( AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Health (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 693, 700–701, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 292 ( AIDS Healthcare Foundation ).) "We independently review the petition to determine whether [Appellants have] stated a viable cause of action for mandamus relief." ( Id . at p. 700, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 292.)

"A respondent may test the legal sufficiency of a petition for writ of mandate by demurrer. [Citation.] On appeal from an order of dismissal after a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, our review is de novo. [Citation.] In performing our independent review of the [petition], we assum...