United States v. Envigo RMS, LLC

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ENVIGO RMS, LLC, Defendant.

No. 6:22-cv-00028

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Lynchburg Division

May 21, 2022

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ISSUED EX PARTE)

NORMAN K. MOON, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On May 19, 2022, the United States of America filed a complaint and motion requesting an ex parte temporary restraining order directed against Envigo, a company that breeds and sells animals for use in scientific research. Envigo's facility in Cumberland, Virginia, raises thousands of beagles for these purposes at any given time. This Court now concludes that the Government has provided sufficient evidence that Envigo is engaged in serious and ongoing violations of the Animal Welfare Act, and that an immediate temporary restraining order must issue to put a halt to such violations pending further proceedings.

Over 300 beagle puppies have died onsite due to “unknown causes” over seven months. Many were not given anesthesia before they were euthanized by intracardiac injection. Beagles with even minor injuries or easily treated medical conditions were euthanized rather than given veterinary care. Nursing female beagles were denied food, and so they (and their litters) were unable to get adequate nutrition. The food that the beagles did receive was observed to contain live insects, worms, maggots, beetles, flies ants, mold, and feces.

Beagle puppies remained housed in their enclosures as they were hosed down with cold water, leaving them shivering. Over an eight-week period, 25 beagle puppies died from cold exposure. The enclosures were overcrowded. The facility was understaffed. Inspectors found over 900 beagle and beagle puppy records to be incomplete or inaccurate. The list of serious violations of the Animal Welfare Act and its regulations goes on and on. Indeed, pursuant to federal search warrant executed days ago (May 18, 2022), law enforcement has seized 145 dogs and puppies from the facility that veterinarians determined needed immediate care to alleviate life-threatening illnesses or injuries.

The Government has demonstrated that extraordinary relief in the form of an ex parte temporary restraining order is warranted to put an immediate halt to such practices. Defendants will have the opportunity to plead their case on an expedited basis.

Background

Congress enacted the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”), in part “to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities ... are provided humane care and treatment.” 7 U.S.C. § 2131(1); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. U.S. Dep't of Ag., 861 F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2017) (“Congress passed the AWA in 1966 to regulate the research, exhibition, and sale of animals, as well as to assure their humane treatment.”).

The AWA authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to “promulgate such rules, regulations, and orders as he may deem necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of [the AWA].” 7 U.S.C. §§ 2132(b), 2151. The Secretary has promulgated many such regulations under the AWA. See 9 C.F.R. § 1.1-3.142. The AWA and its regulations “set forth minimum requirements for the treatment of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors including how animals are to be handled, housed, fed transported, and provided veterinary care.” United States v. Lowe, No. 20-cv-0423, 2021 WL 149838 at *11 (E.D. Okla. Jan. 15, 2021) (citing 7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(1)-(a)(2)(A); 9 C.F.R. § 3.1-.142).

Envigo RMS, LLC operates a facility in Cumberland, Virginia where it deals in beagles intended for use at research facilities.^[1] Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 3. Up to 5, 000 beagles have been housed at this facility since July 2021. Id. In 2019, the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) issued Envigo a “Class A” license under the AWA to breed and sell dogs (AWA license 32-A-0774). Id. ¶¶ 3, 48; Dkt. 2-1 p. 3.

Between July 2021 and March 2022, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”) conducted five inspections of Envigo's Cumberland facility-documenting over 60 citations for Envigo's failing to comply with the AWA and its regulations, and over half of those were “critical” or “direct” violations, which are the most serious type of violation. See Compl. ¶¶ 4, 50-54; Dkts. 2-2 - 2.6.^[2] On May 18, 2022, USDA agents and other law enforcement officers executed a federal search warrant at the Cumberland facility, seizing 145 dogs and puppies that were determined to be in “acute distress” and needing immediate veterinary care to alleviate life-threatening illnesses or injuries. Compl. ¶ 55; Dkt. 2-8 ¶ 8 (“Moffett Decl.”); Dkt. 2-9 ¶ 6 (“Hollingsworth Decl.”).

On May 19, 2022, the Government filed this federal lawsuit against Envigo, alleging six violations of the Animal Welfare Act and its implementing regulations. See Compl. Later that day the Government also filed an ex parte motion and brief requesting that the Court issue a temporary restraining order against Envigo. See Dkts. 2, 2-1.

Standard of Review

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if” two conditions are met. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1). First, the movant must provide “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(A). Second, the movant's attorney must “certify in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(B).

A temporary restraining order “is intended to preserve the status quo only until a preliminary injunction hearing can be held.” Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., 174 F.3d 411, 422 (4th Cir. 1999); see also Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. B'hood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (explaining that ex parte temporary restraining orders under federal law “should be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer”).

As with a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order^[3] must establish (1) “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, ” (2) “that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, ” (3) “that the balance of equities tips in his favor, ” and (4) “that the injunction is in the public interest.” See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Moreover, “Winter made clear that each of these four factors must be satisfied to obtain preliminary injunctive relief.” Henderson ex rel. NLRB v. Bluefield Hosp. Co., 902 F.3d 432, 439 (4th Cir. 2018). Such relief constitutes an “extraordinary remedy” that is never awarded as of right. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.

The AWA includes a provision setting forth statutory “authority to apply for injunctions.” 7 U.S.C. § 2159. It states that, “[w]henever the Secretary has reason to believe that any dealer, carrier, exhibitor, or intermediary handler is placing the health of any animal in serious danger in violation of this chapter of the regulations or standards promulgated thereunder, the Secretary shall notify the Attorney General.” Id. § 2159(a). The Attorney General then “may apply to the United States district court in which such dealer, carrier, exhibitor, or intermediate handler resides or conducts business for a temporary restraining order or injunction to prevent any such person from operating in violation of this chapter of the regulations and standards prescribed under this chapter.” Id. This provision further states that “[t]he court shall, upon a proper showing, issue a temporary restraining order or injunction under subsection (a) without bond.” Id. § 2159(b).

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

1. Failure to Provide Adequate Veterinary Care

The Government contends that Envigo has consistently failed, despite repeated warnings and opportunities for correction, to meet its obligations under AWA's implementing regulations to provide adequate veterinary care. See Dkt. 2-1 pp. 10-11. Based on the overwhelming evidence produced by the Government, the Court agrees.

The AWA has authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to “promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors, ” which include the “minimum requirements” for “adequate veterinary care, ” among other things. 7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(1)-(2)(A); see also 9 C.F.R. § 3.13 (“Veterinary care for dogs”); 9 C.F.R. § 2.40 (“Attending veterinarian and adequate veterinary care”).

Programs of “adequate veterinary care” require “[d]aily observations of all animals to assess their health and well-being.” 9 C.F.R. § 2.40(b)(3). While that “daily observation” need not always be conducted by a licensed veterinarian, “a mechanism of direct and frequent communication is required so that timely and accurate information on problems of animal health behavior, and well-being is conveyed to the attending veterinarian.” Id.^[4] The regulations also require that medical observation be followed-up with “an appropriate program of veterinary care for dogs that is developed, documented in writing, and signed by the attending veterinarian.” 9 C.F.R. § 3.13(a). The program must include a yearly physical examination by a veterinarian, vaccinations, treatment for parasites, and other preventative care; including “treatment to ensure healthy and unmatted hair coats, properly trimmed nails, and clean...