Pet

Subscribe to Pet
Dog
Facts

The Spagenskis (“the Homeowners”) lived in a community in San Diego County with their German shepherd Kato.  The community was governed by Sunset Greens Homeowners Association (the “Association”) in accordance with a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (“CC&R’s”). From February 2019 to May 2019, Kato attacked three dogs in the community.  In the first incident, Kato injured a resident and her dog, and after the incident, Kato was placed in home quarantine by the Humane Society.  The Association ordered the Spagenskis to comply with the CC&R’s to ensure that Kato would be kept under control.  Three months later, Kato attacked two other dogs and other residents in the community.  One of the injured dogs died while undergoing surgery.  The Humane Society, once again, placed Kato in-home quarantine for another 10 days.  Following the second incident, the Association directed the Spagenskis to remove Kato from the community and filed suit, seeking injunctive relief for breaching the CC&R’s and nuisance clause.
Continue Reading Association’s Vested Discretion in Declaring an Aggressive Dog a Nuisance

Dog by Pool
Facts

Plaintiff, Cohen (“Tenant”) and Defendant, Clark (another tenant, “Clark”) leased separate apartments in the same building on the same day, July 21, 2006.  Both leases prohibited pets in the building or on the premises.  Tenant picked the apartment in part because of its no pet policy, as she had a severe allergy to pet dander that caused her to carry an EpiPen to protect against anaphylactic shock.  A month after entering into the lease, Clark requested an emotional support dog as a reasonable accommodation.  Clark provided the landlord with a letter from his psychiatrist stating that he had mental illness that impaired his ability to function.  The psychiatrist recommended that for his well-being he own and care for a dog.  The manager advised the tenants of the request and asked if any had allergies.  Tenant responded providing detailed information relative to her pet allergy.  The manager contacted the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (“ICRC”) and requested it to review the matter.  “The ICRC’s housing provision is nearly identical to the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA).” The ICRC told the manager that Clark could not be moved to another building as that was unreasonable and that the manager had to attempt to accommodate both issues (Clark’s pet and the Tenant’s allergy).  The manager had them use separate stairwells.  Tenant had allergic reactions such that she seemed to have a permanent cold and her throat swelled at times.
Continue Reading Another Helpful Emotional Support Animal Case