Karstan Lovorn – Student Editor (updated by Rebecca F. Wisch)

Attorneys and other legal professionals are well-acquainted with the procedural steps involved in bringing a lawsuit.  Laypersons, however, may not fully realize the multitude of filings that accompany the average lawsuit.  For purposes of this website, the "pleadings" are those documents filed by either party in a lawsuit before, during, or after trial.  These documents include complaints, motions, memoranda of law, briefs, and opinions, which are organized by the case name and topic addressed (see below). 

Generally speaking, a plaintiff (the party bringing the civil lawsuit) files a complaint that sets forth a claim(s) for relief by alleging the wrongdoings by defendant and outlines the claimed damages.  Damages are the money compensation sought by the plaintiff for the loss to his or her person, property, or rights.  Motions, written or oral applications submitted to the court to obtain a rule of law or introduction of evidence, are then submitted by either party to be decided by the court.  Following motions and trials, courts issue opinions and orders that determine the legal and sometimes factual issues of a case.  After trial, the party who disagrees with the court's decision is usually allowed to file an appeal that contests the decision of the court.  For a more detailed introduction on the functioning of the federal and state court systems, please click here to see How Does our Court System Work, by Karstan Lovorn.

Through this page the pleadings and/ or legal briefs – trial and appeal – for animal related cases will be provided.  For an example of one case that has eleven documents please see, Burgess v. Taylor

Type of Court Document	Example by Case Name
Complaint	Center for Animal Law & Advocacy v. Maggard (Ohio, 2002) (pdf file 67 KB)
Brief	Hammer v. AKC (NY, 2003) (pdf file 4397 KB)
Motion to Dismiss	ALDF v. Veneman (U.S., 2003) (pdf file 106 KB)
Petition for Writ of Mandamus	Williams v. Orange County Animal Control (Cal., 1996) (pdf file 455 KB)
Sample Voir Dire Questions	Horse Neglect Case (2002) (pdf file 57 KB)

We need the help of practicing attorneys to provide us with the materials to post in this section of the Web Center.  If you have an animal related case that you think others might be interested in viewing the pleadings / briefs / jury charges, please contact us.

Recently Obtained Materials:
ASPCA v. Ringling Bros.	Plaintiffs-ASPCA filed suit against Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus and Feld Entertainment, Inc, under the citizen-suit provision of the Endangered Species Act.  Plaintiffs allege that FEI routinely beats elephants, chains them for long periods of time, hits them with sharp bull hooks, breaks baby elephants with force to make them submissive, and forcibly removes baby elephants from their mothers before they are weaned. This conduct, plaintiffs contend, violates the "take" provision of the ESA.
Richardson v. Primarily Primates	Plaintiffs in this Texas case are non-human primates and humans interested in their welfare.  Defendants are a "sanctuary" for retiring research animals.  Plaintiffs contend the defendants breached their contract by not providing adequate care for the chimps and in fact, causing several to die in transit and at the facility.
CVMA v. City of West Hollywood	A veterinary trade group challenged the adoption of a 2003 by the City of West Hollywood that prohibited the non-therapeutic de-clawing of house cats.  The documents available include amici briefs.  On Friday, June 22, 2007, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles upheld the ordinance.
Mansour v. King County	Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals reversed a King County Animal Control decision declaring a dog vicious.  The court held that for this or any other plaintiff to rebut the evidence against his or her dog, due process requires that he or she be allowed to subpoena witnesses and present records.
Levine et al v. Johanns	This federal action challenges the exclusion of poultry animals from the Humane Slaughter Act.  Plaintiffs maintain that by excluding these animals from safe and humane slaughter, it exposes them to greater risk of food-borne pathogens.  Plaintiffs request an order finding the USDA's decision to exclude poultry from the HSA was arbitrary and capricious.

 Thanks to the Animal Legal Defense Fund who has provided many of the documents included in this section as well as the funding to allow the development of this topic.