Salazar v. Kubic
370 P.3d 342
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Lynn Kubic operated a rodent-breeding facility (mice and rats) selling them as feed for snakes and other carnivores.
- Kubic previously held a PACFA license but allowed it to expire in March 2013 and continued operating.
- In June 2013 the Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture issued a cease-and-desist; Kubic continued operations.
- The Commissioner sued and the trial court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Kubic from operating without a PACFA license and from violating the cease-and-desist order.
- Kubic appealed, arguing PACFA did not apply to her business because her rodents were sold as feed (not household pets) and were exempt as livestock or working animals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding PACFA’s definition of “pet animal” plainly includes mice and rats and that Kubic’s rodents do not fall within the livestock or working-animal exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mice and rats are "pet animals" under PACFA | PACFA expressly lists mice and rats as pet animals; statute controls | Kubic: PACFA should be limited by the common meaning of "pet" or modified by the clause limiting coverage to animals kept as household pets | Held: PACFA’s definition expressly includes mice and rats; the modifying clause applies only to the phrase after the second "or"; mice/rats are covered |
| Whether animals sold as food for other animals are excluded from PACFA | Commissioner: statute’s defined term controls regardless of use | Kubic: rodents sold as feed are not "pets" in common usage and thus outside PACFA | Held: Legislature defined "pet animal" to include mice and rats; common-meaning argument rejected; statute applied as written |
| Whether rodents qualify as "livestock" or "working animals" exempting them from PACFA | Commissioner: rodents are neither livestock nor working animals under statutory definitions | Kubic: breeding rodents for food/stock makes them working animals or livestock | Held: Livestock list and commissioner-designation categories do not include mice/rats; "working animals" entails animals trained to perform tasks — Kubic’s rodents are sold as feed, not used to perform work, so no exemption |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by issuing permanent injunction | Commissioner: injunction appropriate to enforce statutory licensing scheme | Kubic: injunction improper because PACFA does not apply | Held: No abuse of discretion; legal interpretation was correct and factual findings supported injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Esparza-Treto, 282 P.3d 471 (Colo. App.) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Huddleston v. Grand Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 913 P.2d 15 (Colo. 1996) (reviewing court decides legal issues; deference to agency where statute ambiguous)
- Shelby Res., LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 160 P.3d 387 (Colo. App. 2007) (questions of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- E-470 Pub. Highway Auth. v. Revenig, 140 P.3d 227 (Colo. App. 2006) (scope of trial court discretion reviewed for reasonableness)
- Boulder Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. M.D.C. Constr. Co., 830 P.2d 975 (Colo. 1992) (clear statutory language must be applied as written)
- Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Bill Boom, Inc., 961 P.2d 465 (Colo. 1998) (statutory definition sections must be given effect)