United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga
921 F. Supp. 2d 835
E.D. Tenn.2013Background
- Plaintiff United Pet Supply, Inc. operated a pet store in Hamilton Place Mall, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
- McKamey Animal Care (ACT) and its employees Walsh, Nicholson, and Hurn enforced city codes as animal control, issuing and revoking pet dealer permits.
- On June 15, 2010, ACT and state and city officials seized animals, records, and Plaintiff’s city permit from the Pet Shop.
- Plaintiff sought circuit court injunctive relief; the city court later ruled on permit-related issues, with conflicting procedural outcomes.
- City Code § 7-34(e) limits ACT’s discretion to revoke permits; the complaint alleges no pre-deprivation hearing.
- City amended City Code later to create an Animal Control Board, reducing ACT’s role in permitting questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process protection for permit revocation | Petitioner had a protected property interest in the permit. | City Code did not create a clear pre-deprivation process. | Parratt/Mathews analysis applied; due process violated for permit revocation. |
| Due process for seizure of animals | Animals were seized without pre-deprivation hearing. | Seizure authorized by City Code under regulatory scheme. | Mathews factors favor pre-deprivation hearing; violation found for animal seizure. |
| Fourth Amendment applicability to search and seizure | Search and seizure without warrant/consent violated Fourth Amendment. | Regulatory inspections may justify warrantless searches under pervasively regulated business doctrine. | Complaint supports Fourth Amendment violation for search; seizure of animals/records also violated. |
| Qualified immunity and official-capacity liability | Officers violated clearly established rights; immunity not justified. | Potential immunity due to role of nonprofit McKamey and procedural posture. | Qualified immunity not granted to individuals or McKamey; rights clearly established. |
| State-law claims (Tennessee Constitution, abuse of process, conversion, tortious interference) | State-law claims independently viable. | Claims not cognizable or adequately alleged. | Tennessee constitution claims, tortious interference with business and contract dismissed; abuse of process and conversion partially allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981) (established/post-deprivation remedy rule in improper deprivation scenarios)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1990) (pre-deprivation safeguards may be required even with established procedures)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor test for due-process adequacy of procedures)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1987) (pervasively regulated businesses may have warrantless inspections with limits)
- Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n, 442 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2006) (immunity/role of nonprofit organizations in public functions)
- Branson, 21 F.3d 113 (6th Cir. 1994) (pervasive government interest standard for commercial inspections)