Our Cases
Some of our current and past public pending cases include:
Nguyen v. PetSmart, LLC et al.
Plaintiff’s family member, a previously healthy dog named Suri, died while in the care of a PetSmart hotel having been “found dead” despite PetSmart advertising that it provides “around-the-clock care”. Defendant advertises that “Guests will feel at home with the around-the-clock care of our pet-loving staff”, that it offers a “safe, clean…environment”, that “[t]he safety, health, and happiness of our customers, pets and associates are a top priority”, and that it provides “24/7 supervised care by trained professional associates” and “safe indoor accommodations”, and advises clients that “PetSmart will exercise reasonable judgment on the suitability of Services we provide to your Pet based on commercially reasonable standards and the information you disclose to us.” However, Plaintiff contends that the environment was not safe or clean, and there was clearly not 24/7 care if they “found” Suri dead. Moreover, Plaintiff believes PetSmart did not exercise reasonable judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s animals, resulting in Suri’s untimely death and injury to both Dee and Kai. Unfortunately, this is not the only case of dogs becoming seriously ill and/or dying while in or as a result of Defendant’s care. Ryther Law Group filed suit against PetSmart for the wrongful and unlawful death of Plaintiff’s beloved companion Suri and for the damages to her and her two other beloved dogs Dee and Kai, as well as claims for false advertising and unlawful business practices. This case has resolved.
Mary Lou Rane v. Los Angeles Department of Animal Services
RLG filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus on behalf of our client, Dr. Mary Lou Rane, for violations of her constitutional rights to due process. The writ was filed because the ruling, made by the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services, against Dr. Rane and her dog, Codie Bear, was based on an administrative hearing report containing many facts that were clearly inaccurate, false, or even nonexistent. The writ further alleges that exculpatory evidence was ignored and that a financially motivated complaining witness was given full credibility, while the only other eyewitnesses were considered non-credible despite no evidence to support that conclusion. The writ also includes Dr. Rane’s appeal to the Board of Commissioners, which was improperly held. The writ names the Department of Animal Services, the City of LA, and the Board of Commissioners as defendants. It was filed in LA Superior Court in February, 2021. Since the issues in Dr. Rane’s case can be found in many other animal control hearings and appeals, Ryther Law Group also sent a letter to all defendants, prior to filing suit, requesting changes to policies and procedures as settlement. After receiving no response, the writ was filed. The case settled and the designation against her dog, Codie Bear, as potentially dangerous was reversed.
Humane Hunting Legislation, Kauai
The conversation surrounding potential solutions to Hawaii’s wild and feral pig problem has always been a contentious one – the pigs are simultaneously considered an invasive species that causes environmental degradation, a direct link to the state’s history and culture, and a source of income, food, and entertainment. Because of the nonexistence of effective legislation pertaining to hunting pigs, insufficient funding for local environmental and animal rescue/rehabilitation organizations, and the lack of comprehensive and mandatory education for both hunters and enforcement officers, the overpopulation problem has manifested itself into both ineffective and inhumane hunting practices that are either widely accepted or ignored. We wrote a legislative proposal which was presented to a county council in Kauai, where our clients, who wish to remain anonymous, reside. While the bill was not introduced in 2022, we plan to work with our clients to propose the legislation again.
Rubin et al. v. Mohawk Alley Animal Hospital et al.
Disco, a four-and-a-half-year-old terrier was seen at Mohawk Alley Animal Hospital for a dental cleaning and to possibly have one tooth extracted. While under anesthesia, Defendants pressured Plaintiffs into agreeing to another 15 teeth extracted, claiming six were baby teeth that had not fallen out. To this day, Disco has not grown any adult teeth to fill the voids left by those six alleged baby teeth. Worse, there was some sort of complication that was concealed by Defendants causing an infection in Disco’s tail, which ultimately led to the tail to the having to be amputated! Plaintiffs have confirmed that this is not the only injury of this exact nature to occur at Defendants’ facility – another dog also suffered from a tail injury after undergoing dental surgery. This case has resolved.
Barry v. Sehaj Grewal, DVM and The Melrose Vet
Plaintiff brought his young healthy dog Pip to Dr. Grewal for a routine neuter surgery. Plaintiff was unaware that Dr. Grewal was on probation with the California Veterinary Medical Board at the time. Tragically, Pip died a few days later. To make matters worse, prior to Pip’s tragic death, Plaintiff reached out to Dr. Grewal, and Dr. Grewal did not offer any assistance. Disturbingly, Dr. Grewal’s lead Veterinary Technician at the time has informed Plaintiff that she knew of “three other animals who died of complications that month alone.” Later, it was discovered that Dr. Grewal knew he had done the sutures improperly and lied to Plaintiff not wanting to admit his wrongdoing. Ryther Law Group has filed a lawsuit against Dr. Grewal and the Melrose Vet on behalf of Plaintiff seeking justice for Pip. Recently, this case resolved.
These are just a few of our active and past public cases. In addition, we represent numerous clients in settlement negotiations and assist many other clients with small claims cases. A few of those cases include:
A case against a pharmaceutical company whose drug has caused our clients’ dog to suffer from horrible seizures.
A case against a boarding facility for negligent care that led to the death of our clients’ dog.
Cases against veterinarians for grossly negligent care leading to severe injuries to our clients’ animals.
Disputes over the custody of animals.