Electronically Filed

4/19/2023 12:08 PM
Steven D. Grierson
CLERK OF THE COURT

1 ACOMP
2 AMY M. HELT
3 SHAWN A. MANGANO
4 9284 West Russell Road #202
5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
6 (702) 622-4912 – Phone
7 Electronic Mail: amymhelt@hotmail.com
8 Plaintiffs
9
10
11 DISTRICT COURT
12
13 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
14
AMY M. HELT, an individual; and SHAWN
15
A. MANGANO, an individual,
16
Case No. A-23-863488-C
17
Plaintiffs, Department 21
18
ARBITRATION EXEMPTION –
19
v. EQUITABLE RELIEF SOUGHT
20
21
RMDT LLC, a Nevada Domestic Limited-
22
Liability Company; HEATHER ALANNA
23
BENSON, an individual; ERIKA DANIELLE
24
SCHROEDER, an individual; KATHYRN
25
CLARK MARTINEZ, an individual; DOES I
26
through X and ROES I through X, inclusive,
27
28
Defendants.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMY M. HELT (“Helt”) and Shawn A. Mangano (“Mangano” and collectively referred

to herein with Helt as the “Plaintiffs”), hereby allege and complain against Defendants RMDT

LLC (“RMDT” or “WRAH”), HEATHER ALANNA BENSON (“Benson”), ERIKA

DANIELLE SCHROEDER (“Schroeder”) and KATHRYN CLARK MARTINEZ (“Martinez”

and collectively referred to herein with RMDT, WRAH, Benson and Schroeder as the

“Defendants”) as follows:

-1-

Case Number: A-23-863488-C

 1 PARTIES
2
3 1. Plaintiffs are, and at all relevant times alleged herein, were, citizens of the State of
4
5 Nevada residing in Clark County.
6
7 2. Defendant RMDT is, and at all relevant times alleged herein, was, a Nevada
8
9 Domestic Limited-Liability Company doing business in the State of Nevada, Clark County.
10
11 3. Defendant RMDT, is, and at all relevant times alleged herein, was, doing business
12
13 in the State of Nevada, Clark County under the Fictitious Firm Name “West Russell Animal
14
15 Hospital” (“WRAH”).
16
17 4. Defendant Benson is, and at all relevant times alleged herein, was, an individual
18
19 residing in the State of Nevada, Clark County.
20
21 5. Defendant Schroeder is, and at all relevant times alleged herein, was, an
22
23 individual residing in the State of Nevada, Clark County.
24
25 6. Defendant Martinez is, and at all relevant times alleged herein, was, an individual
26
27 residing in the State of Nevada, Clark County.
28
7. The true names and capacities of Defendant DOES I through X are unknown to

Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs therefore sue said Defendants by said fictitious names. Plaintiffs are

informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that each of the Defendants designated as DOE is

responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to herein and caused damages

to Plaintiffs as alleged. Moreover, Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and thereupon allege that

each of the Defendants designated as DOE were acting in the course and scope of their

employment with Defendant WRAH and are in some manner responsible for the events and

happenings referred to herein that caused damages to Plaintiffs as alleged. Plaintiffs will ask for

leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of DOES I

-2-
 1 through X when their identity is ascertained by Plaintiffs, together with appropriate allegations to
2
3 join such Defendants in this action.
4
5 8. The true names and capacities of Defendant ROES I through X are unknown to
6
7 Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs therefore sue said Defendants by said fictitious names. Plaintiffs are
8
9 informed and believe, and thereupon allege that each of the Defendants designated as ROE is
10
11 responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to herein and caused damages
12
13 to Plaintiffs as alleged. Moreover, Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and thereupon allege that
14
15 each of the Defendants designated as ROE were acting in the course and scope of their
16
17 employment with Defendant WRAH and are in some manner responsible for the events and
18
19 happenings referred to herein that caused damages to Plaintiffs as alleged. Plaintiffs will ask for
20
21 leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of ROES I
22
23 through X when their identity is ascertained by Plaintiffs together with appropriate allegations to
24
25 join such Defendants in this action.
26
27 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
28
9. Defendant RMDT, at all times relevant to this Complaint, was owner and operator

of a veterinary medical practice and boarding facility located at 9140 West Russell Road, Las

Vegas, Nevada since, at least, August 14, 2013, when the facility was issued a license by the

Nevada State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.

10. Daniel Diaz, who has been a veterinarian licensed by the Nevada State Board of

Veterinary Medical Examiners since at least May 19, 1999, serves as the Manager for RMDT

and, therefore, is primarily responsible for all day-to-day activities of the entity unless some or

all of such activities are delegated to an appropriate individual.

-3-
 1 11. In or before October 2018, RMDT had designated Anton Roach, DMV
2
3 (“Roach”), as “practice manager” for WRAH.
4
5 12. Upon information and belief, Roach operated as “practice manager” for WRAH
6
7 and controlled, operated and managed the day-to-day operations of the veterinary and boarding
8
9 practice.
10
11 13. Upon information and belief, from at least October 21, 2016 to October 2018,
12
13 Roach operated WRAH with guidelines that required veterinary technicians (“Vet Techs”) and
14
15 veterinarians (“Vets”) to physically examine all canine and feline boarding/hospitalization
16
17 patients upon intake in order to evaluate their suitability for such services and to ascertain, at a
18
19 minimum, if there were any conditions, circumstances or health concerns that required special
20
21 attention or that would otherwise make the animal unsuitable for boarding.
22
23 14. Upon information and belief, Roach screened potential boarding/hospitalization
24
25 patients prior to intake regardless of the length of boarding/hospitalization time requested by the
26
27 patient’s owner.
28
15. Upon information and belief, Roach’s screening requirements were applied to all

potential boarding/hospitalization patients prior to intake into WRAH, whether or not the patient

had prior boarding/hospitalization stays at WRAH.

16. In May 2016, Plaintiffs owned a beloved, black cat named Coco (“Coco”). Coco

unexpectedly passed, which was confirmed after Plaintiffs took him to WRAH.

17. Based largely in-part on the exceptional bedside manner of Roach, Plaintiffs

elected to take their other dogs to WRAH.

18. On June 24, 2016, Plaintiffs became the joint owners of a senior Maltese-mix

named “Mikey” (“Mikey”).

-4-
 1 19. On September 30, 2016, Plaintiffs became the joint owners of a senior, special
2
3 needs Dalmatian named Kellie (“Kellie”), who was born deaf. Kellie was adopted by Plaintiffs
4
5 with no known major medical conditions aside from being born deaf.
6
7 20. On November 22, 2016, Plaintiffs became the joint owners of an adult Dalmatian
8
9 named Max (“Max”). Max was adopted by Plaintiffs with no known, substantiated major
10
11 medical conditions.
12
13 21. Plaintiffs, having experienced Roach’s exceptional bedside manner with Coco’s
14
15 passing, elected to exclusively use WRAH as Kellie, Max and Mikey’s primary boarding and
16
17 veterinary practice.
18
19 22. On November 23, 2016, Max was given a regular examination at WRAH after his
20
21 adoption. WRAH confirmed that Max had no major or minor medical conditions requiring
22
23 treatment.
24
25 23. Mikey, unlike Kellie and Max, suffered from seizures that required Plaintiffs to
26
27 administer Phenobarbital twice a day. Plaintiffs were also required to administer Thera Tears
28
and/or Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Solution, and/or Ofloxacin Ophthalmic Solution two or more

times per day to address Mikey’s “dry eye” condition and/or cataracts/alleged general blindness,

which was likely caused from an inability to produce natural tears.

24. Mikey’s Phenobarbital prescription was filled on a monthly basis. At all times,

WRAH and/or one or more of the Defendants advised one or more of the Plaintiffs that Mikey’s

Phenobarbital prescription could not be renewed unless he was given a required blood test.

Plaintiffs believed that the blood test was required by Nevada and/or federal law given that

Phenobarbital was a barbiturate. At no time did any of the Defendants advise any of the Plaintiffs

that the blood test being required was imposed by WRAH.

-5-
 1 25. On or about August 20, 2017, during boarding at WRAH, Martinez diagnosed
2
3 Mikey with a cancerous bladder tumor. As a result, she issued a prescription for Previcox, which
4
5 was thought to potentially help shrink any such tumors and extend the length and quality of
6
7 Mikey’s life.
8
9 26. From March 19, 2017 to October 2018, Kellie and Max were boarded multiple
10
11 times on a daily and/or weekly basis at WRAH. In fact, Kellie and Max were boarded a total of
12
13 twenty-two (22) days/nights at WRAH during this time period. At all times during Kellie and
14
15 Max’s intake, it is believed that Roach or another Vet examined them with the aid of a Vet Tech
16
17 so that their intake into boarding approved.
18
19 27. During this same time period, Mikey was occasionally boarded at WRAH. While
20
21 WRAH, and specifically Schroeder, was acutely aware of his condition and medical
22
23 requirements, Plaintiffs elected not to always board him at the facility for day/night stays given
24
25 his condition.
26
27 28. Upon information and belief, WRAH was advised upon intake, or prior, that
28
Kellie required additional or “special” watering instructions and that her water intake needed to

be monitored.

29. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ instructions for Kellie were followed

until shortly before Benson became “practice manager” of WRAH in October 2018.

Additionally, Max exhibited signs of potential dehydration during boarding shortly before

Benson became “practice manager” of WRAH in October 2018.

30. Specifically, on December 15, 2018, Kellie was discharged from day boarding at

WRAH and brought out to Mangano. At the time, Mangano was unaware of Benson’s

relationship to the WRAH practice. Despite this fact, an unknown Benson presented Kellie to

-6-
 1 Mangano for surrender and stated that she seemed “dehydrated” upon her release. Mangano
2
3 responded by advising Benson that Kellie had been boarded repeatedly with WRAH and that her
4
5 intake notes, as well as the course of conduct employed by the practice, certainly made them well
6
7 aware of her need for additional water servings during boarding. In fact, Mangano expressly told
8
9 Benson, “[I]f Kellie is dehydrated it is because you didn’t give her enough water. She has always
10
11 required a lot of water during boarding.” While Benson attempted to justify Kellie’s dehydration
12
13 on her age, Mangano once again responded, “She has been boarded here repeatedly without
14
15 incident. If she is dehydrated now, then it is because you didn’t do what you were told to do in
16
17 boarding.” At the time Mangano made these statements to Benson, neither he nor Helt were
18
19 aware that Benson was preparing to take over the role as “practice manager” from Roach at
20
21 WRAH.
22
23 31. In or around October 2018, Benson took over “practice manager” for WRAH. At
24
25 no time thereafter did Benson or any other individual at WRAH advise Plaintiffs that Benson had
26
27 replaced Roach as the “practice manager” for WRAH.
28
32. At no time after October 2018 did Benson or any other individual at WRAH

advise Plaintiffs that the intake procedures or institutional knowledge developed over numerous

boarding sessions for Kellie, Max and/or Mikey had been disregarded/repudiated and/or

eliminated after Benson replaced Roach as the “practice manager” for WRAH. Rather, Plaintiffs

believed, and reasonably expected, that boarding services would continue to be provided as

before.

33. Plaintiffs reasonably and justifiably expected that all of their dogs would receive

the same quality and expertise of care at WRAH as was delivered prior to Benson becoming

“practice manager” of the facility.

-7-
 1 34. Despite the change in the “practice manager” position at WRAH, and despite
2
3 Plaintiffs not being advised that any such change would materially impact the intake and
4
5 application of boarding services at the facility, Plaintiffs elected to board Kellie, Max and Mikey
6
7 for the period of December 22, 2018 to, originally, December 28, 2018.
8
9 35. Prior to boarding, Helt had an extensive call with WRAH that lasted 24 minutes
10
11 to discuss the boarding needs for Kellie, Max and Mikey. During the call, Helt discussed the
12
13 entire intake form required by WRAH for all dogs.
14
15 36. For Mikey, Helt’s conversation included the administration of Phenobarbital,
16
17 Previcox, Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Solution and/or Ofloxacin Ophthalmic Solution, additional
18
19 eye drops, frequent baths, feeding, watering, as well as treats from Santa on Christmas. WRAH
20
21 was also expressly advised that Mikey required a blood test so that his Phenobarbital prescription
22
23 could be renewed. Moreover, Helt was told that Schroeder had taken a special interest in Mikey.
24
25 37. For Kellie, Helt’s conversation included instructions that she needed a harness to
26
27 assist with walking (mostly on slippery flooring), that she needed a lot of bedding for padding in
28
her kennel and that she needed to “elevate her H2O.” This instruction was consistent with, at

least, the boarding instruction given on August 18, 2018, wherein WRAH was instructed that

Kellie “[d]rinks a ton of water.”

38. At the time of boarding, WRAH and all of its staff were well aware that Kellie’s

special care included frequent walks outside her kennel – using “booties” for her feet that she

wore upon intake, and which she had worn on prior boarding intakes – together with frequent

watering/drinks to keep her hydrated.

///

///

-8-
 1 39. At the time of boarding, WRAH was aware that Max did not require any special
2
3 attention or medication. As such, all special instructions were exclusively directed to Kellie and
4
5 Mikey.
6
7 40. At the time of boarding, Helt had provided WRAH with extensive pre-boarding
8
9 instructions. Moreover, given that WRAH had an intimate knowledge of the care required for
10
11 Kellie, Mikey and Max, Mangano delivered the dogs for boarding during the scheduled
12
13 December 22, 2018 drop off time. When doing so, Mangano stressed that Mikey needed required
14
15 bloodwork to renew his Phenobarbital prescription and that he was going to pick-up Mikey’s last
16
17 renewal before boarding so that it could be provided to WRAH.
18
19 41. At the time Mangano checked in Kellie, Max and Mikey for boarding, it was
20
21 made clear that Mikey needed bloodwork performed and that the Phenobarbital prescription was
22
23 that last available for him absent such bloodwork. Staff at WRAH acknowledged that Mikey’s
24
25 bloodwork was necessary and that it would be performed upon admittance to boarding.
26
27 Moreover, the necessary bloodwork was also listed as the last entry in Mikey’s medical chart
28
prior to being admitted to boarding, thereby making it readily apparent to anyone reading

Mikey’s chart that the bloodwork needed to be performed.

42. Upon information and belief, the bloodwork agreed to be performed by WRAH

on Mikey was, in addition to being required to authorize additional prescriptions for

Phenobarbital, also would show whether or not additional markers indicated a significant decline

in his quality of life, which included severe dehydration or the diminution of other necessary

bodily functions.

///

///

-9-
 1 43. From December 22, 2018 to December 28, 2018, Helt made at least a dozen
2
3 telephone calls to WRAH to check on Mikey, Kellie and Max’s condition. During each of these
4
5 telephone calls, Helt was advised by WRAH staff that Mikey, Kellie and Max were doing great
6
7 in boarding and were not experiencing any health issues. These statements were blatantly false as
8
9 Mikey and Kellie were experiencing life threatening dehydration and a rapidly declining quality
10
11 of life. Moreover, for over six days, WRAH had failed to perform the required blood test for
12
13 Mikey, which would have shown that he was suffering from severe dehydration and that
14
15 lifesaving treatment was required.
16
17 44. In fact, on December 25, 2018, Schroeder is listed in Mikey’s medical records as
18
19 noting a “declining quality of life.” Despite this notation, Schroeder made no effort to contact
20
21 either Helt or Mangano to advise them of Mikey’s condition. This evaluation was made without
22
23 WRAH having performed the blood test requested upon admittance to boarding on December 22,
24
25 2018 or immediately thereafter. WRAH finally performed Mikey’s blood test early on December
26
27 28, 2018, after Helt left a message specifically for Schroeder inquiring about the blood test
28
results.

45. On December 28, 2018, Helt had a telephone conversation with Schroeder. It was

during this telephone conversation that Mikey’s true medical condition was revealed. Mikey,

who was fully ambulatory prior to check-in, had not walked since being taken in for boarding on

December 22. He was also extremely dehydrated and lethargic. Mikey’s condition was viewed

as being so dire that Schroeder suggested that he be euthanized.

46. On December 28, 2018, Helt received a telephone call from Schroeder around

approximately 10:00 pm EST advising that Kellie had turned blue and collapsed while being

taken outside for a walk. Kellie, as with Mikey, was suffering from extreme dehydration.

- 10 -
 1 Kellie’s dehydration was so severe that she required several bags of intravenous fluids to
2
3 stabilize her condition.
4
5 47. Due to weather conditions that forced the cancelation of Helt and Mangano’s
6
7 return flight to Las Vegas, they could not retrieve Mikey, Kellie and Max from boarding until
8
9 December 31, 2018.
10
11 48. On December 29, 2018, Schroeder had a telephone call with Helt to discuss
12
13 Mikey and Kellie’s conditions. During this call, it was relayed that Mikey was still not walking.
14
15 Kellie, it was revealed, was also now suffering from vestibular syndrome causing her eyes to dart
16
17 and making it extremely difficult for her to maintain balance while standing or walking. During
18
19 the call, Schroeder again broached the topic of euthanasia for Mikey and Kellie. She additionally
20
21 sent Helt a video showing Kellie’s eyes darting, which is a symptom of vestibular syndrome.
22
23 49. During the call or at no time prior to discharging Kellie, did Schroeder or any
24
25 member of WRAH advise Helt or Mangano that vestibular syndrome is often a temporary
26
27 condition that can be overcome without treatment. Instead, WRAH and its staff continued to
28
recommend euthanasia for Kellie. No other alternatives were presented with regard to her care

and treatment.

50. On information and belief, vestibular syndrome can be caused by and/or

exacerbated by extreme dehydration. Once again, Mikey and Kellie became severely dehydrated

while under the care of WRAH and with full knowledge of their specific water intake needs.

51. Mikey’s condition was even more troubling than Kellie’s condition given that he

was supposed to be given hospital-level care and monitoring while under WRAH’s custody, care

and control. Mikey was to be given three meals per day with water added to his food. He was

also to be given medications with his meals. Moreover, Mikey wore diapers at home, which

- 11 -
 1 would cause him to urinate on himself. WRAH did not allow Mikey to wear diapers while in
2
3 boarding. As such, WRAH elected to bathe Mikey on a daily basis to keep him clean. Based on
4
5 these circumstances, WRAH’s veterinarians and staff would have interacted with Mikey at least
6
7 ten (10) times per day. Thus, WRAH’s veterinarians and staff should have been intimately
8
9 familiar with his health, well-being and condition.
10
11 52. Despite the repeatedly, required interactions with Mikey, no one from WRAH
12
13 advising either Helt or Mangano of his true health, well-being and condition from December 22,
14
15 2018 to Schroeder’s telephone call on December 28, 2018. Moreover, WRAH failed to perform a
16
17 blood test required for the administration of Mikey’s phenobarbital for six days following his
18
19 admittance despite repeated requests from Helt and Mangano to do so. Performing Mikey’s
20
21 blood test upon admittance, as was requested, would have revealed any dehydration or other
22
23 quality of life issues he was experiencing so they could be immediately treated. Delaying the
24
25 blood test subjected Mikey to unnecessary pain and suffering while under the custody, care and
26
27 control of WRAH. Furthermore, WRAH and its staff made repeated misrepresentations to Helt
28
over the course of at least a dozen phone calls inquiring about the health, well-being, care and

condition of Mikey and Kellie. At no point prior to December 28, 2018, did WRAH advise Helt

that Mikey’s health was in rapid decline or that he and Kellie were suffering from extreme

dehydration.

53. Helt arrived first at WRAH to pick-up Mikey. No veterinarians met Helt for

Mikey’s surrender despite his dire medical condition. Rather, a member of the WRAH “hospital”

team presented Mikey to Helt for surrender. No advice was given by WRAH for continuing

treatment. No information was given about the medications Mikey had been given to date or

what medications remained to be administered to him. Rather, WRAH was intent on securing

- 12 -
 1 payment from Helt and Mangano for boarding services that resulted in two senior dogs with
2
3 special needs suffering from, among other things, extreme dehydration and experiencing life-
4
5 threatening conditions.
6
7 54. Mangano arrived next on the morning of December 31, 2018, to pick-up Kellie.
8
9 Mangano was immediately escorted to an examination room and met shortly thereafter by
10
11 Martinez. Mangano was informed that Kellie “was not doing good” and suffering from vestibular
12
13 syndrome. When asked to clarify what type of vestibular syndrome Kellie was suffering from –
14
15 typically diagnosed as central, peripheral or idiopathic in nature – Martinez replied, “All of
16
17 them.” Mangano then questioned how a dog could be suffering from all three conditions and
18
19 extreme dehydration despite at least a dozen phone calls while Kellie was being boarded where
20
21 she was described by WRAH staff as “doing great” until December 28th when she passed out on
22
23 a walk and turned blue. Martinez then excused herself from the examination room and said she
24
25 would return with some answers.
26
27 55. Martinez did not return to the examination room. Instead, Benson returned to
28
discuss Kellie and Mikey’s condition. Benson began by stating that Kellie is “not looking good.”

When questioned about how two senior, special needs dogs could be left in WRAH’s custody,

care and control in boarding only to both suffer debilitating dehydration and other conditions

without anyone notifying the owners, Benson had no response. When pressed by Mangano as to

how WRAH’s staff could misrepresent the health, condition and well-being of two senior,

special needs dogs to the owner over at least a dozen telephone calls from at least December 22,

2018 to December 27, 2018, Benson denied any such communications occurred. When Benson

was challenged on her position that the communications from WRAH’s staff never occurred, she

essentially called Mangano a liar and that the events never transpired as represented. Mangano

- 13 -
 1 then contacted Helt, advised her that Benson was refusing to acknowledge her communications
2
3 with WRAH’s staff and to immediately come over to the facility. Mangano then asked that
4
5 Benson surrender Kellie to him. Benson then stated, again, that she was “not doing good” and
6
7 “not looking great.” Benson then suggested euthanasia for Kellie because of her vestibular
8
9 syndrome. Mangano then request an estimate for Kellie to be euthanized. He additionally
10
11 repeated his request for Benson to surrender Kellie. At this point, Benson agreed to have a
12
13 veterinary technician retrieve Kellie and bring her to the examination room.
14
15 56. Benson returned to the examination room shortly before Kellie was presented.
16
17 Once again, Benson stressed that Kellie was not in a good condition. Shortly thereafter, Kellie
18
19 was carried into the examination room by a female veterinary technician. Kellie still had an
20
21 intravenous port in her front leg, which was likely used to administer fluids to address her severe
22
23 dehydration. Kellie could not walk on her own, unlike when surrendered to WRAH’s custody,
24
25 care and control. Her eyes darted horizontally. She was in extreme general distress. Mangano
26
27 advised that he was taking Kellie home and that WRAH would be advised about a euthanasia
28
procedure for her the next day. Benson was also advised the Helt would be arriving at the facility

shortly to discuss the circumstances surrounding, at least, Mikey and Kellie’s boarding while

under the custody, care and control of WRAH. Benson responded that she would speak to Helt

“if she was available to do so.” When pressed by Mangano that she would make herself

available, Benson agreed. Benson then allowed Mangano to exit the examination room and

WRAH without removing the intravenous port in Kellie’s front leg.

57. Helt picked up Max after Mikey and Kellie had returned home. Prior to leaving

the facility, WRAH demanded another payment for boarding services, which was paid by Helt

using Mangano’s debit card. Upon returning home, Max began to drink copious amounts of

- 14 -
 1 water, thereby indicating he was also suffering from some degree of dehydration after being
2
3 under the custody, care and control of WRAH.
4
5 58. Prior to Max returning home, Mangano arrived with Kellie and started to perform
6
7 online research concerning her vestibular syndrome. A fairly routine Google Internet search
8
9 revealed that Kellie’s condition was not fatal and that she would likely recover from her
10
11 symptoms in a few days to a week. While Kellie was exceptionally agitated when she returned
12
13 home, after drinking a significant quantity of water and after being in a familiar, comforting
14
15 environment, she relaxed. Over the next, approximately thirty-six (36) hours, Kellie began
16
17 standing and walking on her own without significant impairment.
18
19 59. Had either Mangano or Helt followed WRAH’s recommendation, Kellie would
20
21 have been euthanized before they returned to Las Vegas and without any meaningful veterinary
22
23 advice that she could recover from her condition. Rather, it took Mangano performing a simple
24
25 Internet search to receive such advice and, moreover, learning that it was a primary cause of
26
27 premature euthanasia in elderly dogs. All of this information was readily available to Schroeder,
28
Martinez, Benson and other members of the WRAH staff, yet none of them explained the

condition, the fact that it is recoverable or that the condition frequently results in premature

euthanasia of elderly dogs. To the contrary, at all times Kellie’s condition was conveyed by

Benson, Schroeder, Martinez and WRAH as being completely debilitating and made Kellie a

candidate for euthanasia. These evaluations, recommendations and overall treatment for a senior,

special needs animal fell below the standard of care expected for individuals providing

veterinary care and/or boarding services.

60. Benson surrendered Kellie to Mangano’s custody with her intravenous port still in

place. Shortly thereafter Helt arrived at the WRAH examination room. Benson denied to Helt

- 15 -
 1 that she told Mangano the WRAH staff had stated their animals were “doing great” at any time
2
3 during boarding, with the exception of Max. Benson disputed all statements that Helt relayed had
4
5 been stated to Mangano.
6
7 61. After her brief conversation with Benson, Max was surrendered to Helt. An
8
9 additional payment was then made for boarding and related services provided by the facility
10
11 despite the serious medical conditions facing Mikey and Kellie.
12
13 62. After returning home, Mikey started eating, drinking water and walking despite
14
15 WRAH’s evaluation of his condition. Despite these events, Mikey’s condition eventually
16
17 deteriorated. He had to be euthanized later in the evening of December 31, 2018.
18
19 63. On or about January 3, 2019, Schroeder called Helt to express her concerns about
20
21 Mikey passing. Helt physically visited Schroeder at WRAH and was unaware that Helt had
22
23 contacted the facility at least a dozen times while the animals were in boarding. Schroeder was
24
25 unaware of these calls – despite Mikey’s condition and surprised that she was not advised of
26
27 them. Schroeder, who at one point described the animals in her written medical record as being
28
“decrepit,” gave Helt the impression that neither Mikey nor Kellie should have been boarded. In

fact, Helt was given the impression that Roach would have never accepted them for boarding.

Additionally, she intimated that Helt should have been required to sign a waiver to allow them to

board at the facility.

64. Mikey, Kellie and Max had been repeatedly boarded at the facility, that the staff

was intimately familiar with their needs and that there had been no issues under Roach’s

management of the practice. At all times during Roach’s management of the practice, a

veterinarian and/or veterinarian technician performed an intake evaluation before boarding. At

no time upon boarding Mikey, Kellie and Max at WRAH did a pre-boarding examination take

- 16 -
 1 place and no one advised either Helt or Mangano that Roach had left the practice or that Benson
2
3 elected to discard with pre-boarding examinations for all patients. Moreover, WRAH did not
4
5 present with either Helt or Mangano with a senior animal boarding waiver, as suggested by
6
7 Schroeder.
8
9 65. The only dehydration issues raised with regard to Kellie happened under
10
11 Benson’s management after Mangano took custody of Kellie following a December 15, 2018 day
12
13 boarding session where Benson surrendered Kellie to Mangano and mentioned that she had an
14
15 issue with dehydration. As mentioned earlier, Mangano advised Benson at that time any such
16
17 dehydration was the result of her and her staff not following Kellie’s boarding instructions and
18
19 adhering to her requirements for water.
20
21 66. WRAH was intimately familiar with the boarding, medical and other needs of
22
23 Mikey, Kellie and Max prior to boarding at the facility, which was originally scheduled for
24
25 December 22, 2018 to December 28, 2018. Despite this knowledge, WRAH accepted Mikey,
26
27 Kellie and Max into boarding without any veterinary or veterinary technician screening, which
28
was previously required by Roach during his management of the practice. Helt and Mangano

reasonably believed not performing such a screening was a result of WRAH’s extensive

knowledge of their pets and the detailed pre-boarding intake interview performed by Helt. In

fact, WRAH elected to take Mikey, Kellie and Max into boarding without any screening or other

concerns for their conditions, health or treatment requirements only to deny the anticipated

and/or expected level of care after intake.

67. Upon information and belief, Benson had recently taken over the veterinary and

boarding practice at WRAH from Roach. The Christmas and/or New Year vacation period in

2018 presented an exceptional boarding need for animals at WRAH.

- 17 -
 1 68. Upon information and belief, Benson was unprepared for handling and/or staffing
2
3 the boarding needs for animals at WRAH during the Christmas and/or New Year vacation period
4
5 in 2018. Benson’s unpreparedness resulted in a lack of staffing and/or a lack of institutional
6
7 procedures to ensure that harm would not occur to special needs, senior or other animals placed
8
9 under WRAH’s custody, care and control while receiving boarding services.
10
11 69. Upon information and belief, WRAH made numerous, material, intentional and/or
12
13 reckless representations and/or omissions to Helt concerning the condition of her pets while
14
15 under the facility’s custody, care and control.
16
17 70. Upon information and belief, WRAH made numerous material misrepresentations
18
19 and/or omissions concerning the diagnosis, care, treatment and quality of life for Kellie – both
20
21 while under their custody, care and control and afterward. WRAH, through their veterinary and
22
23 other staff, failed to adequately inform either Helt or Mangano about Kellie’s vestibular
24
25 prognosis.
26
27 71. WRAH, through their veterinary and other staff, failed to adequately inform either
28
Helt or Mangano about Mikey’s prognosis upon discharge from boarding. In fact, Kellie was

discharged with an intravenous fluid port still in her leg and several medications were provided

without additional instructions.

72. Upon information and belief, WRAH’s actions resulted in unnecessary pain,

suffering and a diminished quality of life for Mikey and Kellie. These were circumstances that

Helt and Mangano sought to significantly avoid by boarding Mikey and Kellie with a trusted

veterinary practice with knowledge of the special needs required by their animals. In actuality,

WRAH disregarded its prior veterinary knowledge of Helt and Mangano’s pet’s requirements in

order to maximize patient boarding and minimize the medical needs of boarded pets.

- 18 -
 1 73. Upon information and belief, other animals boarded at WRAH during the same
2
3 operative time period experienced extreme health conditions for which over boarding and/or a
4
5 lack of staffing contributed.
6
7 74. Upon information and belief, Kellie was not offered adequate water during
8
9 boarding. Rather, WRAH’s whiteboard notes for the staff to “hand offer water” and other
10
11 instructions only appeared after Kellie had collapsed due to extreme dehydration. Thereafter, this
12
13 instruction appears several times on Kellie’s whiteboard notes and medical chart. Kellie’s
14
15 dehydration indicates that the instructions contained on her boarding intake forms – both current
16
17 and numerous past forms - were not followed and/or there was an issue providing Kellie with
18
19 water that was neither raised with or discussed with Helt during her repeated calls checking on
20
21 Mikey, Kellie and Max’s status.
22
23 75. Upon information and belief, Benson began administering the prescription
24
25 Panalog to Kellie on a daily basis without consent from either Helt or Mangano. Panalog is
26
27 apparently a prescription used to treat skin or other irritations, which was being administered to
28
Kellie on the belief that she was immobile. Neither Helt nor Mangano consented to the

administration of Panalog to Kellie. Had such consent been requested it would have been

declined as being unnecessary. Moreover, had either Helt or Mangano knew that WRAH was

administering Panalog to Kellie, it would have triggered additional concerns about her boarding

care and overall treatment at the facility.

76. Additionally, WRAH’s chart notes also indicate that Kellie suffered from “urine

staining,” which was a condition she did not suffer from prior to boarding at the facility. Once

again, had any member of WRAH’s staff indicated to either Helt or Mangano that Kellie was

- 19 -
 1 suffering from “urine staining” during boarding, it would have triggered concerns about her
2
3 boarding care and overall treatment at the facility.
4
5 77. At no time did any member of the WRAH staff, veterinarians or veterinarian
6
7 technicians, advise either Helt or Mangano that Kellie needed to be administered Panalog during
8
9 boarding. Rather, the fact that this prescription, which was not consented to, was being
10
11 administered was only discovered after medical records, without intake forms, were provided six
12
13 (6) days after a request was submitted pursuant to and in violation of the 48-hour requirement set
14
15 forth in NAC 638.0475(1).
16
17 78. WRAH failed to deliver all medical records to Helt and/or Mangano upon written
18
19 request as required by NAC 638.0475(1). Under this provision, WRAH was required to do so
20
21 within 48-hours of such a request. Helt made a written request to WRAH on January 10, 2019
22
23 for all medical records. WRAH, in violation of this requirement, did not provide initial copies of
24
25 the requested medical records until January 16, 2019. WRAH subsequently provided a second
26
27 round of responsive records on January 19, 2019. It was only until WRAH produced all
28
responsive records that Plaintiffs were able to start to appreciate the scope of inappropriate and

actionable conduct at issue in the matter. This process encompassed at least four weeks of

reviewing the records produced, evaluating legal remedies that potentially applied and compiling

and filing a complaint with the Nevada Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.

79. Plaintiffs were unable to ascertain or otherwise reasonably identify any claims for

relief against WRAH, or any veterinary staff, Defendant or otherwise, until complete medical

records were produced as required by NAC 638.0475(1). Moreover, even after receipt of such

records, a reasonable review necessary to identify potential causes of action against one or more

- 20 -
 1 of the Defendants required at least two to three weeks of investigation, review and consultation
2
3 with others in the animal welfare community.
4
5 80. On or about March 31, 2020, Governor Steve Sisolak signed Emergency
6
7 Directive 009, which was later amended on April 1, 2020, which suspended the statute of
8
9 limitations until 30 days from the date of the state of emergency declared on March 12, 2020 is
10
11 terminated.
12
13 81. Governor Steve Sisolak signed a proclamation formally terminating the state of
14
15 emergency declared on March 12, 2020 as being effective as of 12:01 a.m. on Friday, May 20,
16
17 2022.
18
19 82. Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are, at a minimum, equitably or administratively tolled
20
21 from any statutes of limitation based on Governor Steve Sisolak’s Emergency Directive 009, or
22
23 its amended or subsequent versions, given his formal state of emergency termination date set
24
25 forth herein. In this regard, Plaintiffs’ equitable and administrative tolling entitlements based on
26
27 the foregoing facts apply to both the time when damages were sustained or, alternatively, the
28
time when Plaintiffs could have reasonably discovered material facts which constitute a cause of

action.

83. In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiffs initially sought redress by filing a

complaint with the Nevada Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners concerning, generally, the

facts alleged herein. This complaint resulted in an investigation for which Plaintiffs are

apparently precluded from accessing under NAC 638.245. This statutory prohibition is an

unnecessary and prohibitive restraint against Plaintiffs’ rights to discovery and also represents a

governmental infringement of their first amendment rights under state and federal constitutional

and other statutory rights.

- 21 -
 1 84. Plaintiffs’ exercise of rights by filing an action with the Nevada Board of
2
3 Veterinary Medical Examiners constituted a sanctioned administrative filing for which they are
4
5 entitled to the benefit of equitable or other tolling should a statute of limitations defense be
6
7 alleged in this action.
8
9 85. Upon being contacted by Helt to attempt to resolve the dispute concerning
10
11 WRAH’s boarding, treatment and care of Mikey and Kellie, Benson deferred to legal counsel
12
13 and ultimately refused to resolve the dispute.
14
15 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
16
17 (Breach of Contract Against WRAH)
18
19 86. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 85 as though fully set forth
20
21 herein at length.
22
23 87. WRAH’s boarding intake and related forms represent a valid and enforceable
24
25 written contract (the “Boarding Contract”) between Plaintiffs and WRAH.
26
27 88. Plaintiffs performed all material obligations required of them under the Boarding
28
Contract, which includes tendering full payment as requested by WRAH.

89. WRAH materially breached the Boarding Contract by, among other things, failing

to follow Plaintiffs’ boarding instructions, misrepresenting the health and condition of animals

under their custody, control and care, administering prescription medication without either Helt

or Mangano’s informed consent, failing to deliver the level of care and treatment necessary to

maintain the health, safety and welfare of Mikey and Kellie.

90. As a result of WRAH’s actions, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount

subject to proof at trial.

- 22 -
 1 91. To the extent Plaintiffs elect to retain the services of an attorney to prosecute this
2
3 action, attorney’s fees and costs incurred should be awarded pursuant to statute and/or rule.
4
5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
6
7 (Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Tort) Against
8
9 WRAH)
10
11 92. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 91 as though fully set forth
12
13 herein at length.
14
15 93. The Boarding Contract represents a valid and enforceable written contract
16
17 between Plaintiffs and WRAH.
18
19 94. Every contract in Nevada contains an implied covenant to act in good faith in
20
21 performance and enforcement of the contract.
22
23 95. Plaintiffs had a justifiable expectation to receive boarding and related services
24
25 consistent with the spirit of the Boarding Contract, which includes, but is not limited to,
26
27 following Plaintiffs’ instructions concerning the specific needs for their pets while in boarding,
28
accurately conveying the health and condition of animals under their custody, control and care,

only administering prescription medication upon receipt of either Helt of Mangano’s informed

consent to do so and to deliver the level of care and treatment necessary to maintain the health,

safety and welfare of Mikey and Kellie.

96. WRAH performed in a manner that was in violation of or unfaithful to the spirit

of the Boarding Contract.

97. A special relationship existed between WRAH and Plaintiffs – either as bailee and

bailor or as veterinarian practice and client.

- 23 -
 1 98. WRAH’s actions in breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
2
3 implied in the Boarding Contract were intentional and/or deliberate.
4
5 99. WRAH’s actions proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount subject to
6
7 proof at trial.
8
9 100. WRAH’s actions were willful, wanton, intentional and deliberate, thereby
10
11 entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages.
12
13 101. To the extent Plaintiffs elect to retain the services of an attorney to prosecute this
14
15 action, attorney’s fees and costs incurred should be awarded pursuant to statute and/or rule.
16
17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
18
19 (Intentional Misrepresentation Against WRAH)
20
21 102. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 101 as though fully set forth
22
23 herein at length.
24
25 103. WRAH, through its boarding staff, made numerous verbal misrepresentations of
26
27 fact to Helt in approximately a dozen telephone conversations that occurred, at least, between
28
December 22, 2018 and December 27, 2018. These misrepresentations concerned the care,

treatment and quality of life for Mikey and Kellie while under WRAH’s custody, care and

control. Specifically, Helt was repeatedly told, among other things, that her dogs were “doing

great” and that there were no problems when in fact both Mikey and Kellie were suffering from

extreme dehydration, vestibular syndrome (Kellie) and apparent urine staining (Kellie) that

required administration of a prescription medication not consented to by either Helt or Mangano.

104. WRAH intentionally made these misrepresentations to induce Plaintiffs to rely

upon them and continue to board their animals without knowing their true health, care and

condition.

- 24 -
 1 105. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on WRAH’s misrepresentations.
2
3 106. WRAH’s actions proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount subject to
4
5 proof at trial.
6
7 107. WRAH’s actions were willful, wanton, intentional and deliberate, thereby
8
9 entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages.
10
11 108. To the extent Plaintiffs elect to retain the services of an attorney to prosecute this
12
13 action, attorney’s fees and costs incurred should be awarded pursuant to statute and/or rule.
14
15 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16
17 (Veterinary Malpractice Against All Defendants)
18
19 109. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 108 as though fully set forth
20
21 herein at length.
22
23 110. WRAH is a veterinary care and boarding facility licensed by the Nevada State
24
25 Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.
26
27 111. Benson is a veterinarian licensed by the Nevada State Board of Veterinary
28
Medical Examiners.

112. Schroeder is a veterinarian licensed by the Nevada State Board of Veterinary

Medical Examiners.

113. Martinez is a veterinarian licensed by the Nevada State Board of Veterinary

Medical Examiners.

114. Benson, Schroeder and/or Martinez were employees of WRAH, under WRAH’s

supervision and control and operating within the course and scope of their employment, thereby

making WRAH responsible for their actions.

- 25 -
 1 115. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care to provide veterinary services consistent
2
3 with those required by other licensed veterinarians of like training and skill within the greater
4
5 Las Vegas community.
6
7 116. Defendants’ duty of care is additionally codified in, among other places, the
8
9 Nevada Administrative Code (“NAC”) and the Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”).
10
11 117. Defendants beached their duty of care owed to Plaintiffs by, among other things,
12
13 not ensuring that Mikey and Kellie’s boarding instructions were expressly followed, to keep
14
15 Plaintiffs fully informed of their health, well-being and condition while in boarding, to only
16
17 administer prescription medication after receiving Helt and/or Mangano’s informed consent and
18
19 to accurately diagnose, advise and treat animals under their custody, control and care.
20
21 118. Defendants additionally breached their duty of care owed by Plaintiffs by, among
22
23 other things, breaching the following NAC provisions: (1) NAC 638.0475(1) – failing to provide
24
25 medical records within 48 hours after receiving a request from the owner of the animal; (2) NAC
26
27 638.045(2) – negligence; (3) NAC 638.046(1) – violation of Principles of Veterinary Medical
28
Ethics and Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics of the American Veterinary Medical

Association Section; and (4) NAC 638.0197(1)(c) & (2) – lack of informed consent.

119. Defendants additionally breached their duty of care owed by Plaintiffs by, among

other things, breaching NRS 638.1402(4).

120. Defendants’ actions proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount subject

to proof at trial.

121. To the extent Plaintiffs elect to retain the services of an attorney to prosecute this

action, attorney’s fees and costs incurred should be awarded pursuant to statute and/or rule.

- 26 -
 1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
3 (Declaratory Relief Against All Defendants)
4
5 122. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 121 as though fully set forth
6
7 herein at length.
8
9 123. A real and justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants
10
11 concerning Defendants’ compliance with several duties and obligations statutorily imposed by
12
13 the NAC and NRS.
14
15 124. Plaintiffs are entitled to an Order from the Court declaring Defendants to have
16
17 violated the statutory obligations imposed by these provisions of the NAC and NRS.
18
19 125. Plaintiffs request that Defendants be subject to supervision and administrative
20
21 compliance by the Nevada Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.
22
23 126. Disclosure of all Nevada Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners investigative
24
25 files to Plaintiffs concerning their complaint regarding the services provided by Defendants as
26
27 alleged herein.
28
127. To the extent Plaintiffs elect to retain the services of an attorney to prosecute this

action, attorney’s fees and costs incurred should be awarded pursuant to statute and/or rule.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask this Court for the following relief:

(a) For judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of Fifteen Thousand

Dollars ($15,000.00), subject to proof at trial;

(b) For disclosure of all Nevada Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners

investigative records related or otherwise referring to Plaintiffs’ allegations;

- 27 -
 1 (c) For an order permitting the Nevada Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to
2
3 investigate, review and otherwise ensure Defendants’ compliance with any and all requirements
4
5 necessary to avoid future harm to other similarly situated parties;
6
7 (d) For an award of punitive damages;
8
9 (e) For an award of attorney’s fees to the extent Plaintiffs elect to retain counsel;
10
11 (f) For an award of costs incurred herein;
12
13 (g) For an Order of Declaratory Relief determining that Defendants have violated one
14
15 or more of the NAC and NRS provisions cited herein; and
16
17 (h) For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
18
19 DATED this 19th day of March 2023.
20
21 By/s/Shawn A. Mangano_____________
22 Shawn A. Mangano
23 9284 West Russell Road #202
24 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
25 (702) 622-4912
26
27
28 By/s/Amy M. Helt_____________
Amy M. Helt
9284 West Russell Road #202
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
(702) 439-4804

Plaintiffs

- 28 -