Salazar, Commissioner of Agriculture v. Kubic
2015 COA 148
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Lynn Kubic operated Willards Rodent Factory, breeding and selling mice and rats as feed for snakes and other carnivores.
- Kubic previously held a PACFA license but allowed it to expire in March 2013.
- The Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture issued a cease-and-desist order in June 2013; Kubic continued operating unlicensed.
- The Commissioner sued and the trial court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting Kubic from operating without a PACFA license and from violating the cease-and-desist order.
- Kubic appealed, arguing PACFA does not apply to rodents sold as animal feed (challenging definitions of “pet animal” and “pet animal facility”).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mice and rats fall within PACFA’s definition of “pet animal” | PACFA’s definition expressly lists mice and rats, so PACFA governs Kubic’s operation | Rodents sold as animal feed are not "pets" under PACFA’s title/ordinary meaning and thus excluded | Court held mice and rats are explicitly included as “pet animal” under PACFA; statute’s definition controls |
| Whether the qualifying phrase "sold, transferred, or retained for the purpose of being kept as a household pet" limits all listed species | Commissioner: that limiting phrase applies only to the clause following “or” (i.e., "any other species") | Kubic: that phrase modifies every species listed, so rodents would be covered only if sold as household pets | Court held the limiting phrase modifies only the items after the first “or”; listed animals like mice and rats need no additional qualification |
| Whether mice and rats are exempt as livestock or working animals | Commissioner: rodents are neither livestock nor working animals as defined/exempted | Kubic: her rodents are raised as food/breeding stock and thus qualify as livestock or working animals exempt from PACFA | Court held rodents do not fit statutory livestock categories and are not "used for working purposes" (not trained or used to perform tasks), so no exemption applies |
| Appropriateness of permanent injunction under PACFA | Commissioner: injunction appropriate to prevent unlicensed operation and enforcement of cease-and-desist | Kubic: PACFA inapplicable so injunction improper | Court affirmed injunction; statutory interpretation controlled and injunction was within trial court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Esparza-Treto, 282 P.3d 471 (Colo. App.) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- E-470 Pub. Highway Auth. v. Revenig, 140 P.3d 227 (Colo. App.) (review of whether trial court decision was within reasonable range)
- Huddleston v. Grand Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 913 P.2d 15 (Colo.) (deference to agency statutory interpretation where appropriate)
- Shelby Res., LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 160 P.3d 387 (Colo. App.) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Boulder Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. M.D.C. Constr. Co., 830 P.2d 975 (Colo.) (clear statutory language must be given effect; avoid strained readings)