• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
 
1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIAPROFESSIONAL DOGBREEDERS ADVISORYCOUNCIL, INC; NAT SLADKIN;SUSAN INSERRA; and NATHANMYER,Plaintiffs,v.DENNIS WOLFF, SECRETARYPENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,Defendant.))))))))))))))))Civil Action No:09-258(Honorable Sylvia Rambo)
AMENDED COMPLAINT
 Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorneys, bringthis complaint against the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture,his employees, agents and successors in office to enjoin theenforcement of various portions of Act 119, signed into law by Governor Edward Rendell on October 9, 2008, and in supportthereof allege the following:
Case 1:09-cv-00258-SHR Document 3 Filed 02/13/2009 Page 1 of 52
 
 
2
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.
 
Anyone in Pennsylvania owning two female dogs that have twotwelve-puppy litters in a year will find themselves defined as akennel by Act 119. If that person sells or transfers a singlepuppy to a dealer or pet shop, s/he now becomes acommercial kennel subject to the colossal requirements of andinvasive, unconstitutional inspections of Act 119. If the sameperson instead sells or transfers all 26 dogs to members of their community, s/he is treated completely differently underthe law.2.
 
On October 9, 2008, Governor Edward Rendell signed into lawAct 119 which amended the Act of December 7, 1982, andplaced into law sweeping changes to Pennsylvania’s Dog Laws,giving dogs heightened protection that no other animal in theCommonwealth enjoys. Although never stated directly in theAct, the purpose is to purportedly protect the health, safety and welfare of dogs. The terms of the Act unfortunately violatenumerous rights guaranteed to humans under the UnitedStates Constitution. The Act on its face discriminates againstout-of-state kennel owners who conduct business anywhere in
Case 1:09-cv-00258-SHR Document 3 Filed 02/13/2009 Page 2 of 52
 
 
3the country and desire to sell to any individual who maintainsa kennel in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Actprovides for the entry into the home of a kennel owner withoutprobable cause other than a kennel owner’s refusal to permitinspection of his/her kennel. The Act’s cease and desist orderprocess violates the Due Process Clause and constitutes anunlawful taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Actdemonstrates utter inequality between the regulation of commercial kennels and all other dog owners in Pennsylvaniawithout any rational basis for such a distinction if the purposeof the Act is truly the health, welfare and safety of dogs.3.
 
 This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 underArticle I and Article IV of the United States Constitution, theFourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the UnitedStates Constitution and the Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-579, § 7(b), 88 Stat. 1896, 1909 (1974) 5 U.S.C. § 552a,challenging the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture’sattempt to regulate interstate commerce, its policy to searchhomes with warrants lacking probable cause, its irrational and
Case 1:09-cv-00258-SHR Document 3 Filed 02/13/2009 Page 3 of 52
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...