“Truth In Pet Adoption Law” Compels Disclosure of Dog Bites

The $7.5 million settlement in Alvarado v. City of Los Angeles, known as the “Pit Bull Meat Grinder Case,” brought attention to a critical law in California and Virginia. It requires that public shelters and private rescues fully disclose a dog’s bite history to potential adopters. Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips, representing the Alvarado family and author of Dog Bite Law (dogbitelaw.com), has dubbed this the “Truth in Pet Adoption Law.”

The case stemmed from a tragic incident involving a pit bull that had previously attacked a jogger and was later rehomed by a Los Angeles animal shelter. Just three months after being adopted, the same pit bull severely injured Mrs. Alvarado, leaving her with catastrophic injuries to her arms. The Alvarados sued the City, claiming violations of the “Truth in Pet Adoption Law,” negligence in failing to warn that the dog was vicious, and irresponsibility in allowing the adoption of such a dangerous animal.

On May 17, 2023, the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled in favor of the Alvarado family. The court confirmed that California’s law demands accountability from shelters and rescues for failing to disclose the bite history of a dog before it is rehomed, holding them liable for any resulting harm. Alvarado v. City of Los Angeles thus marked a landmark victory for the “Truth in Pet Adoption” law, making it an essential tool for enhancing pet adoption practices, public safety, and the welfare of shelter dogs nationwide.

Text of the Truth in Pet Adoption Law as Enacted

California

Two statutes in the California Food & Agriculture Code set forth the state’s “Truth in Pet Adoption Law.” These are sections 30503.5 and 30526. Their wording is identical, but they apply to different counties. Section 30503.5 is for counties that have more than 100,000 residents, while section 30526 is for those with fewer than 100,000. The crucial language in both statutes is as follows:

(b) If an animal shelter or rescue group knows, to the best of the knowledge of the shelter or rescue group, that a dog, at the age of four months or older, bit a person and broke that person’s skin, thus requiring a state-mandated bite quarantine, the animal shelter or rescue group shall, before selling, giving away, or otherwise releasing the dog, do both of the following:
(1) Disclose in writing to the person to whom the dog is sold, given away, or transferred, the dog’s known bite history and the circumstances related to the bite.

(2) Obtain a signed acknowledgment from the person to whom the dog is sold, given away, or transferred that the person has been provided information about the dog as required by this section. The animal shelter or rescue group shall provide the person with a copy of the signed acknowledgment and retain the original copy in its files.

 

Virginia

The Virginia version of the “Truth in Pet Adoptions Law” is section 3.2-6509.1 of the Code of Virginia. The pertinent subsection is as follows:

A. Any custodian of a releasing agency, animal control officer, law-enforcement officer, or humane investigator, upon taking custody of any dog or cat in the course of his official duties, shall ask and document whether, if known, the dog or cat has bitten a person or other animal and the circumstances and date of such bite. Any custodian of a releasing agency, animal control officer, law-enforcement officer, or humane investigator, upon release of a dog or cat for (i) adoption, (ii) return to a rightful owner, or (iii) transfer to another agency, shall disclose, if known, that the dog or cat has bitten a person or other animal and the circumstances and date of such bite.

“Releasing agency” is defined in 2VAC5-115-10:

“Releasing agency” means (i) a public animal shelter or (ii) a private animal shelter, humane society, animal welfare organization, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other similar entity or home-based rescue that releases companion animals for adoption.

 

Origin of the “Truth in Pet Adoption Law”

In 2005, during the Biting Dog Conference held in Novato, California, Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips conducted a 1-1/2 hour seminar for animal control officers, public shelter workers, rescue groups, dog trainers, and lawyers. Among other things, he talked about the legal duty to tell the whole truth when rehoming a dog.

Specifically, Phillips emphasized that shelters and rescues were responsible for gathering information from previous owners, documenting all observations made about the dog when it was in their care, and giving the adopter a thorough written disclosure, to be signed by the adopters and kept by the shelter or rescue. Here is a one-minute clip from that seminar:

 

Nineteen years later, on February 14, 2019, Assembly Bill 588 was introduced by two California Legislature members, Assemblymen Phillip Chen (AD 59) and Kevin Mullin (currently serving as a US Congressman). It aimed to establish Food & Agriculture Code sections 30503.5 and 30526. Together, these became the “Truth in Pet Adoption Law.” with section 30503.5 applicable to counties having a population of 100,000 or more, and section 30526 for smaller counties.

During the public comment period for the proposed legislation, the California Animal Welfare Association conveyed to the California Legislature that there had been a significant increase in the number of emergency room visits resulting from dog bites. They further asserted, “[m]any of these instances could have been prevented if owners were given the proper information regarding a dog’s bite history and the circumstances surrounding particular incidents.”

Upon conducting a thorough examination, the Legislature found that some shelters were disclosing the bite history but others were not. The Senate Committee noted there was a loophole in the law of adoption. Their report said, “current law does not require a shelter or rescue group to disclose information to individuals regarding the animal’s dog bite history.” The Senate report concluded, “The solution to this is to require that any shelter or rescue that adopts out or transfers an animal disclose to the adopter or rescue that the dog has a known bite history and circumstances of the bite.”

The California Animal Welfare Association told the Legislature, “by ensuring shelters and rescues disclose this information to potential adopters, AB 588 [the bill that resulted in secs. 30503.5 and 30526] will make sure that this best practice already used in many shelters is more consistently and broadly practiced in shelters and with rescues across the state . . . .” In other words, the purpose of these sections was to make the duty of disclosure obligatory, without any exceptions. Therefore, the statutes state that shelters and rescues “shall” provide the written disclosure. The term “shall” in the Food & Agriculture Code signifies the creation of a mandatory duty.

Throughout the legislative process, starting from committee review to the full Assembly and Senate, every vote demonstrated unanimous support for the enactment of the bill. Consequently, on October 2, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom approved and signed into law sections 30503.5 and 30526. These sections were subsequently nicknamed the “Truth in Pet Adoption Law” by Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips.

Erosion of Trust in the Pet Adoption System

Another key motivation for the “Truth in Pet Adoption Law” was the growing mistrust in the pet adoption system nationwide. Over the years leading up to this legislation, there were several harrowing incidents where children and adults were attacked or even killed by aggressive dogs that had been rehomed by shelters. Often, these shelters, despite good intentions, made reckless decisions. For instance, on April 29, 2016, a pit bull-mix, previously placed by the San Diego Humane Society, fatally attacked 3-day old Sebastian Caban. (See Colleen Lynn, 2016 Dog Bite Fatality: Pit Bull Rehomed by Humane Society Kills Newborn Baby.)

The repercussions of these rehomings were severe, affecting not just families but also those within the rescue community itself. Fosters associated with rescue groups suffered injuries and even fatalities. (See Rebecca Carey, Georgia Student, Killed By Dogs She Rescued.) Additionally, volunteers at shelters experienced significant, life-altering injuries. In one notable case, a volunteer at a City of Los Angeles shelter was awarded $6.8 million after a dog nearly severed her arm. (see Mikhaila Friel and Grace Eliza Goodwin, An Animal Shelter Volunteer Who Was Attacked by a Dog That Nearly Ripped Off Her Arm Has Been Awarded $6.8 Million in Damages).

These distressing events highlighted the urgent need for stringent laws like the “Truth in Pet Adoption Law” to ensure transparency and safety in the pet adoption process.

The tactics to deceive people into adopting dogs that should not be adopted have included the improper use of temperament tests (see Alexandra Semyonova, Behavior Testing Shelter Dogs — The Reality of Where We Are Now) and “dog laundering.” Attorney Phillips coined “dog laundering” to describe how a dog is transferred between groups to erase its history of aggression towards people and other animals. (See Kenneth M. Phillips, Don’t Support Dog Laundering.) A particularly alarming incident involved a dogo Argentino that had killed a person in New York. This dog was sent to an Ohio rescue group for rehabilitation and was subsequently stolen. (See Jim Sielicki, BLADE, Dog freed in murder stolen from local kennel.)

The following animal shelters were implicated in “dog laundering” schemes to re-home vicious dogs with unsuspecting families:

  • Fairfax County Animal Shelter – Virginia
  • Contra Costa County Animal Shelter – California
  • Austin Animal Shelter (no kill) – Texas
  • Albuquerque Animal Shelter – New Mexico
  • Stamford Animal Shelter – Connecticut

These ethical failures and sometimes criminal behaviors by shelters and rescues started to damage the public’s trust in the pet adoption system. People were encouraged to adopt dogs from shelters instead of buying from breeders. However, there was an increasing number of news reports about attacks linked to misleading practices by shelter “humaniacs“—a term Attorney Phillips uses to describe those who prioritize dog welfare over human safety. Consequently, a “Truth in Pet Adoption Law” became essential to rebuild confidence in the system.

Alvarado v. City of Los Angeles: Overcoming Challenges to the “Truth in Pet Adoption Law”

The horrific mauling of Argelia Alvarado (70) in Van Nuys, California, happened on September 26, 2020. The key facts are summarized in Shelters Can Be Forced to Tell the Whole Truth and detailed in the Complaint filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court as Alvarado v. City of Los Angeles, 21STCV27837. Here is a recap of them:

  • In May 2020, a pit bull named “O’Gee” brutally attacked a jogger in Los Angeles. The dog was impounded and the city’s animal control officer wrote in the dog’s records that the attack was vicious, the injuries moderate, and that a hearing should take place to consider euthanizing the dog.
  • Two weeks later, however, a supervisor at the city’s animal shelter authorized giving the dog to anyone who asked for it, rather than sending it to any of the rescue groups that could house a vicious dog safely and humanely.
  • Days later, employees at the shelter adopted-out the dog to the adult son of 70-year-old Argelia Alvarado without warning him or telling him the dog’s bite history and circumstances of the bite. He adopted the dog, thinking it was friendly and safe.
  • Just 3 months later, it mauled Mrs. Alvarado in the backyard of the house they shared, shredding both of her arms and almost entirely chewing off her right one. Doctors had to amputate it almost to her shoulder. Additionally, her left arm was permanently disabled in the attack, leaving her with only 10-20% functionality of her left hand.
  • A police officer at the scene of the mauling said Mrs. Alvarado’s right arm was “looking like it went through a meat grinder and the bones were broken.” Because of the police officer’s description of Mrs. Alvarado’s injuries, her lawsuit was called the “Pit Bull Meat Grinder Case.”

The lawsuit on behalf of Mrs. Alvarado and her husband pursued the City for three basic wrongs committed by its employees:

  • Violating the “Truth in Pet Adoption Law” that required disclosing the pit bull’s bite history,
  • Failing to warn the adopter that the pit bull was vicious, and
  • Allowing the pit bull to be adopted-out at all.

Faced with this lawsuit, the City of Los Angeles, which had initially supported the creation of California’s “Truth in Pet Adoption Law,” reversed its stance. The City requested that the Los Angeles Superior Court dismiss the case on about twelve different grounds. Two of these grounds attacked section 30503.5.

The City contended that compliance with section 30503.5  was optional. The basis of this defense was that section 30503.5 supposedly allowed the shelter management to use “discretion” in applying the law. The City said the shelter could decide whether the dog was old enough to come within the law, and whether there should be a rabies quarantine. These judgment calls made the disclosure something other than a “mandatory duty,” according to the defense. Therefore, the Complaint failed to trigger California Government Code § 815.6 because it failed to identify an enactment that imposed a mandatory duty on the City.

The City also argued that Mrs. Alvarado had no legal right to sue. They based this argument on a provision in the “Truth in Pet Adoption Law” that requires payment of a $500 fine for any violation—a fine that, remarkably, the City would pay to itself. Adding to the absurdity, the City claimed that because the statute specified a fine, the victim of the mauling had no right to sue for her injuries.

Previous cases held that a court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. (Bravo v. Cabell (1974) 11 Cal.3d 834, 838, 114 Cal.Rptr. 618, 523 P.2d 658.) Also, that statutes should never be interpreted in a way that leads to absurd consequences. (City of Plymouth v. Superior Court (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 454, 466, 96 Cal.Rptr. 636.)

Had the City’s interpretation prevailed, Attorney Phillips stated that the law would be totally ineffective. He presented the following argument to the court:

“Good-hearted people who come to a shelter with the intention of giving a dog a loving, forever home must be treated with honesty. It’s not optional for our government to tell us the truth. We have a right to the full truth about something we are taking into our homes to share with our children, spouses, and parents. This case is based on that right.”

On May 17, 2023, the court rejected the City’s arguments and sided with the Alvarados on every point. The lawsuit was allowed to proceed, despite the City’s contention regarding the fine. As to whether “Truth in Pet Adoption” was optional, the court ruled that —

“The language in [section 30503.5] is mandatory as exemplified by the repeated use of the word ‘shall.’ If the animal shelter knows of a bite by a dog four months or older, it is required to disclose that information and obtain a signed acknowledgment. There is no discretion contemplated by the statute.”

A Case of National Importance

The court’s decision in the “Pit Bull Meat Grinder Case” carries significant national implications. Although only two states currently have a “Truth in Pet Adoption Law,” it is vital for all 50 states to enact such legislation. Everyone in the country deserves to know the full history of a rescue dog they are adopting.

The ruling underscores that a well-formulated “Truth in Pet Adoption Law” will be upheld by the courts, enabling victims to seek reimbursement for medical costs and compensation for pain and suffering caused by violations.

This decision is also crucial for the welfare of dogs; without proper disclosure, dogs that are not suitable for adoption may end up repeatedly in shelters or abandoned on the streets.

Model Version of the “Truth in Pet Adoption Law”

Drawing on lessons learned in Alvarado v. City of Los Angeles, Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips drafted the following model version of the “Truth in Pet Adoption Law” based closely on the California statutes:

(a) Legislative Findings: The Legislature finds that many dog bite incidents could be prevented if dog owners are given proper information regarding a dog’s bite history and the circumstances surrounding particular incidents. When an individual adopts a shelter or rescue dog without knowing critical information such as a dog’s bite history, it places both the adopter and the animal in danger. By making it mandatory that shelters and rescues disclose this information to potential adopters, this “Truth in Pet Adoption Law” will make sure that this best practice already used in many shelters is consistently and broadly practiced in shelters and rescues across the state, benefiting adopters, their families, and their new companions, as well as making communities safer, reducing the costs of the dog bite problem, and encouraging the adoption of dogs from public shelters and rescues.

(b) Definitions: For purposes of this section:

  1. “Animal shelter” means a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group.
  2. “Rescue group” means a for-profit or not-for-profit entity or an individual or collaboration of individuals that removes dogs from a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane shelter, or rehomes a dog that has been previously owned by any person other than the original breeder of that dog.

(c) Disclosure Requirements: If an animal shelter or rescue group knows, to the best of the knowledge of the shelter or rescue group, that a dog, at the age of four months or older, bit a person and broke that person’s skin, the animal shelter or rescue group shall, before selling, giving away, or otherwise releasing the dog, do both of the following:

  1. Disclose in writing to the person to whom the dog is sold, given away, or transferred, the dog’s known bite history and the circumstances related to each bite.
  2. Obtain a signed acknowledgment from the person to whom the dog is sold, given away, or transferred that the person has been provided information about the dog as required by this section. The animal shelter or rescue group shall provide the person with a copy of the signed acknowledgement and retain the original copy in its files.

(d) Documentation and Public Safety: These documentation and disclosure requirements are for the purpose of public safety and the appropriate placement of dogs. A documented bite history does not necessarily preclude a dog from being available for adoption, release, or transfer, notwithstanding any other law or local ordinance related to biting dogs.

(e) Penalties: Each violation of this section shall be punished by a civil fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500), imposed by the city or county in which the animal shelter or rescue group is located. If the person who violates this section is a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group, the proceeds of the civil fine shall be paid to the local public animal control agency or shelter. If a public animal control agency or shelter violates this section, the proceeds of the civil fine shall be deposited into the State Treasury.

(f) Additional Legal Recourse: The penalties set forth in this statute are in addition to, and not in substitution for, any other rights and remedies available to individuals adversely affected by violations of this statute. Such individuals may pursue any legal recourse or remedies independently of any penalties imposed under this statute.

(g) Enforcement by Attorney General: If any city or county fails to enforce this statute, the Attorney General is authorized to take all necessary actions to ensure compliance. This authority includes, but is not limited to, initiating civil proceedings, seeking injunctive relief, and imposing penalties as prescribed by law.

(h) Short Title: This statute may be referred to as the “Truth in Pet Adoption Law.”

For Further Information

Press ESC key to close search

Follow Dog Bite Law!

Recent Posts

Use Our AI

For quick answers and links to the relevant pages of dogbitelaw.com, use The Dog Bite Law Assistant