Ackley v. Richardson, 6:17-cv-01108

On May 20–21, 2015 Ackley was a passenger in a vehicle that fled a traffic stop, flipped after a PIT maneuver, and she was detained and jailed by counties other than Dodge City for 19 days.
During/after detention, four dogs from the vehicle came into the custody chain: Coldwater initially took control, then Coldwater marked the dogs as abandoned/surrendered and transferred them to Dodge City Animal Shelter, which later transferred them to a rescue.
Ackley alleges she repeatedly contacted Dodge City while incarcerated and after release to reclaim the dogs, but Dodge City treated the intake as owner surrender and would not assist; she claims emotional distress and loss of the dogs.
Ackley sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations (not central to this order) and brought state-law claims against Dodge City for negligence (failure to safeguard dogs) and “taking of personal property”/conversion.
Dodge City moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (1) no legal duty was owed to Ackley as owner, (2) even if a duty existed transfer to a humane org. was reasonable, and (3) conversion fails because household dogs have no market value.
The court granted dismissal of the negligence claim (no special duty owed) but denied dismissal of the conversion claim (market-value rule is flexible; other measures of damages plausible).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dodge City owed a legal duty to safeguard Ackley’s dogs while she was jailed	Ackley: Dodge City had a duty to safeguard the dogs until she was released and a reasonable time thereafter	Dodge City: Public-duty doctrine; no special relationship or duty to individual owners	Held: No special duty; negligence claim dismissed
Whether Dodge City breached a duty by transferring the dogs to a rescue	Ackley: Dodge City ignored her inquiries and transferred dogs despite knowing she was the owner	Dodge City: Transfer to humane organization was reasonable action for impounded animals	Held: Court dismissed negligence claim, so breach analysis not reached on merits
Whether Dodge City can be liable for conversion where household dogs arguably lack market value	Ackley: Dogs were her property; wrongful disposition supports conversion and damages	Dodge City: Kansas precedent says household dogs have no market value, so conversion damages unavailable	Held: Conversion claim survives; courts may use flexible damage measures (value to owner, replacement/veterinary costs) beyond mere market value
Whether complaint meets Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard	Ackley: Complaint alleges facts permitting inference of conversion and negligence	Dodge City: Allegations insufficient as a matter of law	Held: Under Twombly/Iqbal standard, negligence fails as a matter of law; conversion allegations are plausible and survive dismissal

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Standards for pleading plausibility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Plausibility and legal conclusions in complaint)
The Estate of Lockett by & through Lockett v. Fallin, 841 F.3d 1098 (Pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6))
Williamson v. City of Hays, 275 Kan. 300 (Elements of negligence under Kansas law)
Fudge v. City of Kansas City, 239 Kan. 369 (Public-duty doctrine; governmental duties ordinarily to public at large)
Jarboe v. Board of Sedgwick County Comm'rs, 262 Kan. 615 (No special duty absent special relationship)
Burgess v. Shampooch Pet Indus., Inc., 35 Kan. App. 2d 458 (Household pet market-value discussion; damages flexibility)