Concerned Dog Owners v. City of Los Angeles
123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 774
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- In 2008, LA amended LAMC 53.15.2 to require spay/neuter of dogs/cats unless exemptions apply.
- Exemptions include breeder permits and five categories; if exempt, the animal must receive an identification chip.
- City cited pet overpopulation and public health concerns; ordinance aimed to reduce births over four months old.
- Ordinance set to take effect Oct 1, 2008; CDOC sued for declaratory and injunctive relief; trial court denied relief.
- Appellate court upheld as valid exercise of police power, affirming no constitutional infirmity, relying on trial court’s findings and related authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment free speech | CDOC argues the breeder permit designation compels speech | City contends ordinance regulates conduct, not protected speech | Not violated; ordinance regulates conduct, not expression, and no compelled speech. |
| First Amendment freedom of association | CDOC claims compelled association with registries or exemptions | No right to associate with unaltered pets; exemptions do not force association | Not implicated; no protected association right affected. |
| Equal protection | CDOC asserts irrational discrimination against unaltered-pet owners lacking exemptions | Rational basis supports regulation to address overpopulation | Rational basis review satisfied; no equal protection violation. |
| Due process and vagueness | CDOC claims vagueness and inadequate notice (esp. breeding-permit and show-exemption language) | Provisions provide adequate notice; ambiguity not shown | No facial vagueness; standards sufficiently clear in ordinary application. |
| Takings clause (Fifth Amendment) individual liberties | CDOC contends sterilization constitutes a taking requiring just compensation | Regulation with breeding-permit option; no physical taking; reasonable relation to objective | Not a taking; regulatory measure with exemptions; deference afforded to such regulation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1972) (vagueness and chill of First Amendment rights)
- California Teachers Assn. v. State Bd. of Education, 271 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2001) (facial vagueness and First Amendment scrutiny standards)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1983) (due process notice and standard of vague laws)