This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/12/2021 at 04:45:50 (UTC).

INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY ON BEHALF OF CITY OF POMONA VS CLAUDIA AGREDANO

Case Summary

On 11/17/2020 INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY ON BEHALF OF CITY OF POMONA filed an Other lawsuit against CLAUDIA AGREDANO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3811

  • Filing Date:

    11/17/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Appellant and Petitioner

INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY ON BEHALF OF CITY OF POMONA

Respondent

AGREDANO CLAUDIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Other Attorneys

HASSELL MICHELINA J.

 

Court Documents

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF CLAUDIA AGREDANO IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS REPLY TO PETITIONERS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE TIMELINESS OF APPEAL

4/28/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF CLAUDIA AGREDANO IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS REPLY TO PETITIONERS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE TIMELINESS OF APPEAL

Objection (name extension) - Objection RESPONDENTS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHELINA HASSELL IN SUPPORT OF CITYS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE TIMELINESS OF APPEAL

4/28/2021: Objection (name extension) - Objection RESPONDENTS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHELINA HASSELL IN SUPPORT OF CITYS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE TIMELINESS OF APPEAL

Brief (name extension) - Brief City's Supplemental Brief re Timeliness of Appeal

4/15/2021: Brief (name extension) - Brief City's Supplemental Brief re Timeliness of Appeal

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Michelina Hassell in Support of City's Supplemental Brief re Timeliness of Appeal

4/15/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Michelina Hassell in Support of City's Supplemental Brief re Timeliness of Appeal

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing - Other Trial De Novo Re: Petition For Determination ...)

3/19/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing - Other Trial De Novo Re: Petition For Determination ...)

Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal - Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal VACATING NOTICE OF FILING

3/8/2021: Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal - Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal VACATING NOTICE OF FILING

Appeal - Notice Vacating Notice of Default - Appeal - Notice Vacating Notice of Default

3/8/2021: Appeal - Notice Vacating Notice of Default - Appeal - Notice Vacating Notice of Default

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Trial De Novo Re: Petition For Determination ...)

3/5/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Trial De Novo Re: Petition For Determination ...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Trial De Novo Re: Petition For Determination ...) of 03/05/2021

3/5/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Trial De Novo Re: Petition For Determination ...) of 03/05/2021

Appeal - Notice of Default Issued - Appeal - Notice of Default Issued

2/26/2021: Appeal - Notice of Default Issued - Appeal - Notice of Default Issued

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Briana Marquez

12/22/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Briana Marquez

Order (name extension) - Order [Proposed] Order Declaring Dogs Potentially Dangerous

1/5/2021: Order (name extension) - Order [Proposed] Order Declaring Dogs Potentially Dangerous

Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed - Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed

2/4/2021: Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed - Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Order/Judgment on the City's Petition for Determination of Potentially Dangerous Dogs and Imposition of Fines

2/9/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Order/Judgment on the City's Petition for Determination of Potentially Dangerous Dogs and Imposition of Fines

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Petition For Determination of Pote...)

11/19/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Petition For Determination of Pote...)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Animal Control Officer Daniel Pena in Support of Petition for Determination of Potentially Dangerous Dogs and Imposition of Fines

11/17/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Animal Control Officer Daniel Pena in Support of Petition for Determination of Potentially Dangerous Dogs and Imposition of Fines

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of John Hernandez

11/17/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of John Hernandez

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

11/17/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

24 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing - Other Trial De Novo Re: Petition For Determination ...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing - Other Trial De Novo Re: Petition For Determination ...) of 05/07/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • DocketHearing - Other Trial De Novo Re: Petition For Determination of Potentially Dangerous Dogs and Imposition of Fines scheduled for 05/07/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 05/07/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2021
  • DocketDeclaration OF CLAUDIA AGREDANO IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS REPLY TO PETITIONERS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE TIMELINESS OF APPEAL; Filed by: Claudia Agredano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2021
  • DocketReply TO PETITIONERS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE TIMELINESS OF APPEAL; Filed by: Claudia Agredano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2021
  • DocketObjection RESPONDENTS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MICHELINA HASSELL IN SUPPORT OF CITYS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE TIMELINESS OF APPEAL; Filed by: Claudia Agredano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2021
  • DocketDeclaration AMENDED DECLARATION OF CLAUDIA AGREDANO IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS REPLY TO PETITIONERS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE TIMELINESS OF APPEAL; Filed by: Claudia Agredano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2021
  • DocketBrief City's Supplemental Brief re Timeliness of Appeal; Filed by: Inland Valley Humane Society on behalf of City of Pomona (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2021
  • DocketDeclaration Declaration of Michelina Hassell in Support of City's Supplemental Brief re Timeliness of Appeal; Filed by: Inland Valley Humane Society on behalf of City of Pomona (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2021
  • DocketNotice of Continued Hearing on the Trial de Novo on Appeal; Filed by: Inland Valley Humane Society on behalf of City of Pomona (Petitioner); As to: Claudia Agredano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition For Determination of Potentially Dangerous Dogs and Imposition of Fines; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof scheduled for 03/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of Jannet Ibarra; Filed by: Inland Valley Humane Society on behalf of City of Pomona (Petitioner); As to: Claudia Agredano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of John Hernandez; Filed by: Inland Valley Humane Society on behalf of City of Pomona (Petitioner); As to: Claudia Agredano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketSummons on Petition; Issued and Filed by: Inland Valley Humane Society on behalf of City of Pomona (Petitioner); As to: Claudia Agredano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Inland Valley Humane Society on behalf of City of Pomona (Petitioner); As to: Claudia Agredano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of Animal Control Officer Daniel Pena in Support of Petition for Determination of Potentially Dangerous Dogs and Imposition of Fines; Filed by: Inland Valley Humane Society on behalf of City of Pomona (Petitioner); As to: Claudia Agredano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP03811    Hearing Date: May 7, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS AND IMPOSITION OF FINES

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Inland Valley Humane Society

RESP. PARTY: Respondent Claudia Agredano

APPEAL - PETITION TO DETERMINE IF DOG IS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS

(Food & Agric. Code §§ 31602; 31622)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Because it is untimely under Food & Agricultural Code section 31622, subdivision (a), Petitioner Inland Valley Humane Society’s appeal of the Court’s December 22, 2020 order is DENIED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on December 22, 2020 [X] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

PET. SUPP PAPERS: Filed on April 15, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

RESP. SUPP PAPERS: Filed on April 28, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

Petitioner Inland Valley Humane Society (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Determination of Potentially Dangerous Dogs (the “Petition”) against Respondent Claudia Agredano (“Respondent”). The Petition sought to declare two adult Pitbulls, Kaitlin and Corn Dog (the “Dogs”), potentially dangerous as defined by Food and Agricultural Code section 31602, subdivision (b). (Pet., p. 2:3-8.)

An initial hearing on the Petition took place on December 22, 2020 before the Hon. Edward Simpson in Department 26. (12/20/20 Minute Order.) Following oral argument from the parties, the Court took the matter under submission. (Id.)

Later that day, having fully considered the arguments and evidence of the parties, the Court found Caitlyn [sic] and Corndawg [sic] potentially dangerous as defined by Food and Agricultural Code section 31602, subdivision (b). (Id.) The Dogs were ordered to be kept indoors or in the rear yard in a secure fence not less than six (6) feet high from which the Dogs could not escape and, when off the owner’s premises, restrained by a leash no longer than six (6) feet. (Id.) The Court also ordered the Dogs to be properly licensed and vaccinated but declined to issue any requirements for liability insurance or impose investigation and veterinary charges because Petitioner did not provide any legal authority for these requests. (Id.)

The Court also noted that Section 31625 provides for seizure and impoundment pending a hearing, and for liability of the owner for the costs and expenses of keeping the dogs. (Id.) However, a hearing must take place no later than ten days after service of notice to the owner. (Id.) Because the December 22 hearing took place in excess of the ten-day limitation, the Court only awarded Petitioner costs for ten days of keeping the dogs, totaling $100.00. (Id.) Petitioner was ordered to file a proposed order within twenty (20) days. (Id.)

Petitioner’s proposed order was electronically received by the Court on January 5, 2021. The Hon. Serena Murillo in Department 26 signed the order on January 14, 2021.

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on February 4.

In accordance with Food and Agricultural Code section 31622, subdivision (b), a de novo hearing was scheduled for March 19 in this Department. Following oral arguments regarding the timeliness of the appeal, the Court continued the matter and ordered Petitioner to file a supplemental brief on this issue. (3/19/21 Minute Order.) The parties were also ordered to meet and confer on a possible resolution of all outstanding matters. (Id.)

Petitioner filed a supplemental brief on April 15, and Respondent filed a response on April 28.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

Food & Agricultural Code section 31622, subdivision (a), provides:

“(a) After the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 31621, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued, either personally or by first-class mail postage prepaid by the court or hearing entity. If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the owner or keeper of the dog shall comply with Article 3 (commencing with Section 31641) in accordance with a time schedule established by the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or the head of the local law enforcement agency, but in no case more than 30 days after the date of the determination or 35 days if notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. If the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, they may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction.”

(Emphasis added.)

The court hearing the appeal shall conduct a hearing de novo and make its own determination as to the potential dangerousness or viciousness of the dog and may make other orders as authorized by this chapter. (Food & Agric. Code § 31622, subd. (b).)

Relying on California Rules of Court, rule 8.104, subdivision (c)(2), Petitioner argues the appeal is timely. (4/15/21 Pet. Supp. Brief, pp. 3:8-4:6.) However, Rule 8.104 is inapplicable. That rule applies to appeals filed with courts of appeal and the California Supreme Court.

Food and Agricultural Code section 31622 is clear. It provides that an appeal must be filed within five days of receipt of the notice of determination. As noted above, the Court issued its ruling on December 22, 2020 and the Department 26 clerk mailed a copy of the order to the parties that same day. (12/22/20 Certificate of Mailing.) On January 5, 2021, the Court electronically received Petitioner’s proposed order. Because Petitioner submitted a proposed order in accordance with the December 22 order on January 5, 2021, Petitioner received notice of the determination of the Petition, the latest, on January 5. Petitioner’s appeal, however, was filed 44 days after notice of the Court’s ruling was mailed to the parties and 30 days after the Court received Petitioner’s proposed order.

Thus, the appeal is untimely and for that reason, it is DENIED.

III. Conclusion & Order

Because it is untimely under Food & Agricultural Code section 31622, subdivision (a), Petitioner Inland Valley Humane Society’s appeal of the Court’s December 22, 2020 order is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP03811    Hearing Date: March 19, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Fri., March 19, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Inland Valley Humane Society v. Agredano PET. FILED: 11-17-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP03811 HEARING: 12-22-20

NOTICE: OK

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS AND IMPOSITION OF FINES

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Inland Valley Humane Society

RESP. PARTY: Respondent Claudia Agredano

PETITION TO DETERMINE IF DOG IS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS

(Food & Agric. Code § 31602)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Because it is untimely under Food & Agricultural Section Code section 31622, subdivision (a), Petitioner Inland Valley Humane Society’s appeal of the Court’s December 22, 2020 order is DENIED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on December 22, 2020 [X] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

Petitioner Inland Valley Humane Society (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Determination of Potentially Dangerous Dogs (the “Petition”) against Respondent Claudia Agredano (“Respondent”). The Petition sought to declare two adult Pitbulls, Kaitlin and Corn Dog (the “Dogs”), potentially dangerous as defined by Food and Agricultural Code section 31602, subdivision (b). (Pet., p. 2:3-8.)

An initial hearing on the Petition took place on December 22, 2020 before the Hon. Edward Simpson in Department 26. (12/20/20 Minute Order.) Following oral argument from the parties, the Court took the matter under submission. (Id.)

Later that day, having fully considered the arguments and evidence of the parties, the Court found Caitlyn [sic] and Corndawg [sic] potentially dangerous as defined by Food and Agricultural Code section 31602, subdivision (b). (Id.) The dogs were ordered to be kept indoors or in the rear yard in a secure fence not less than six (6) feet high from which the Dogs could not escape and when off the owner’s premises, restrained by a leash no longer than six (6) feet. (Id.) The Court also ordered the Dogs to be properly licensed and vaccinated. (Id.) The Court declined to issue any requirements for liability insurance, veterinary care, or investigation charges because Petitioner did not provide any legal authority for these requests. (Id.)

As for charges, the Court noted that Section 31625 provides for seizure and impoundment of dogs pending a hearing, which is required to take place no earlier than five (5) days or later than ten (10) days after service of notice on the owner. (Id.) Section 31625 also provides for liability of the owner of the dogs for the costs and expenses of keeping the dogs. (Id.) However, because the December 22 hearing took place in excess of the ten-day limitation, the Court only awarded Petitioner costs for ten days of keeping the dogs, totaling $100.00. (Id.) Petitioner was ordered to file a proposed order within twenty (20) days. (Id.)

Petitioner filed the proposed order on January 5, 2021 in accordance with the December 22, 2020 decision. The Hon. Serena Murillo in Department 26 signed the order on January 14, 2021.

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on February 4, 2021.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

Food & Agricultural Code section 31622, subdivision (a), provides:

“(a) After the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 31621, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued, either personally or by first-class mail postage prepaid by the court or hearing entity. If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the owner or keeper of the dog shall comply with Article 3 (commencing with Section 31641) in accordance with a time schedule established by the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or the head of the local law enforcement agency, but in no case more than 30 days after the date of the determination or 35 days if notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. If the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, they may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction.”

(Emphasis added.)

The court hearing the appeal shall conduct a hearing de novo and make its own determination as to the potential dangerousness or viciousness of the dog and may make other orders as authorized by this chapter. (Food & Agric. Code § 31622, subd. (b).)

As an initial matter, the Court finds Petitioner’s appeal is untimely. As noted above, the Court issued its decision on the Petition on December 22, 2020 and the Department 26 clerk mailed a copy of the order to Petitioner and Respondent. (12/22/20 Certificate of Mailing.) Because Petitioner filed a proposed judgment in accordance with the December 22, 2020 order on January 5, 2021, Petitioner had notice of the Court’s determination the latest on January 5, 2021. Petitioner did not file an appeal with five (5) days of receiving notice of the Court’s determination as required by Food and Agricultural section 31622, subdivision (a); rather Petitioner waited at least thirty (30) days before filing this appeal.

Because Petitioner’s appeal is untimely, the appeal is DENIED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

Because it is untimely under Food & Agricultural Section Code section 31622, subdivision (a), Petitioner Inland Valley Humane Society’s appeal of the Court’s December 22, 2020 order is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer HASSELL MICHELINA J.