LEGAL CHALLENGES TO PROPERTY INTEREST INFRINGEMENT     NEW 4/26/08
Material on this page © The Animal Council 2008

Legal challenges to local ordinances and state statutes may be either criminal, when individual defendants are
charged with violations of criminal provisions, or civil, either arising from alleged violations of civil provisions or
actions brought by individuals and/or organizations seeking declaratory or injunctive relief apart from any
enforcement activion.  These civil cases often fail for plaintiff's lack of "standing" and/or failure to state a viable
"cause of action" representing a plausible legal theory supported by adequate factual allegations.  Cases dismissed
for these reasons simply fail and neither uphold the challenged law nor create any precedent for future cases.  
Typically this type of case has been inadequately prepared as to proper legal pleadings and factual allegations,
although court language may also suggest underlying weaknesses to any challenge or simply failure to have an
appropriate plaintiff and facts.  Trial court decisions apply only to that individual case.  Only published appellate
cases may be cited as legal precedent, binding on other courts within the same jurisdiction and of arguable
guidance to other courts.  Appellate courts at any level, either state or federal, have restrictive criteria as to
acceptance of cases for hearing, so that many cases simply cannot reach an appellate court for substantive re-
consideration. Even a published appellate case may be decided one or more issues not relevant to the underlying
subject issues and not be useful precedent for similar cases.   A successful case will generally apply only to narrow
issues that may be easily curable by amendment by the lawmaking body when the political will to pursue the policy
issues persist.  An unsuccessful case will set negative precedent on the political level even if the case does not rise
to the level of judicial precedent.  


    Unofficial copies of cases provided for educational purposes.  Use official editions for citation purposes.
CASE
 ISSUES
 HOLDING
 STATUS
CALIFORNIA
      
AMERICAN CANINE FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEN SUN, D.V.M., the Public Health
Veterinarian for the State of
California et al., Defendants

No. C-06-4713 MMC

November 27, 2007
 Challenge to Los Angeles Courty
ordinance enacted April 2006
requiring dogs over 4 months
micro-chipped and sterilized
unless qualifying for an unaltered
dog license.  
(1) ordinance not preempted by the
federal Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”);
(2) does not violate federal and
state constitutional rights to
procedural due process; (3)  does
not violate federal and state
constitutional rights to substantive
due process and equal protection;
(4) is not an ex post facto law in
violation of Article I, sections 9 and
10, of the United States
Constitution; (5) does not violate
the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment to the United States
Constitution; (6) does not adversely
affect interstate commerce in
violation of the Commerce Clause
of the United States Constitution;
(7) does not violate “freedom of
contract” by “infringing on the
business of selling canines in
California and thus to the rest of
the United States,”;  (8) is not
“unconstitutionally vague,”; (9)
does not violate the right to
freedom of association under the
First Amendment to the United
States Constitution; and (10)  does
not violate California Constitution.  
 ORDER GRANTING COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES’ MOTION TO
DISMISS:  lack of standing and
failure to state a claim, pursuant to
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
 United States District Court
For the Northern District of
California