HomeMy WebLinkAboutAshly Dale 12.16.21 Attachement 31
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND Telephone: 707.795.2533 Facsimile: 707.795.7280 Isabel F. Callejo-Brighton (SBN 333181) Email: icallejo-brighton@aldf.org 525 E. Cotati Ave Cotati, CA 94931 Caitlin M. Foley (IL Bar. No. 6323904)* Email: cfoley@aldf.org 150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60606 Ariel Flint (NYS Bar No. 5593991)* Email: aflint@aldf.org 2125 24 St. Astoria, NY 11105 SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC
Claire Tonry (WSBA No. 44497)*
claire@smithandlowney.com
Knoll D. Lowney (WSBA No. 23457)*
knoll@smithandlowney.com
2317 E. John Street Seattle, Washington 98112 Telephone: (206) 860-2883 Facsimile: (206) 860-4187 smithandlowney.com * (pro hac vices forthcoming)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA REBECCA CAREY, and CODY
LATZER, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 79 Page ID #:1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
J.A.K.’S PUPPIES, INC., JOLYN NOETHE, KIMBERLY DOLPHIN, RUSSELL KIRK, RESCUE PETS IOWA CORP., TBHF LLC D/B/A THE PET X CHANGE, BARK ADOPTIONS, STEPHANIE VAUGHN, ANA DIAZ, PET CONNECT RESCUE, INC., RAY ROTHMAN, ALYSIA ROTHMAN, SUBJECT ENTERPRISE, INC., CODA SUBJECT, MICADA, INC. D/B/A ANIMAL KINGDOM PET SHOP, and ADAM TIPTON,
Defendants.
Case No. COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
INTRODUCTION
1.The State of California has long recognized the need to protect
consumers from unscrupulous animal dealers who sell puppies bred in deplorable
conditions at “puppy mills.” Described as “large commercial breeding facilities that
mass produce animals for sale at retail markets,” puppy mills are commonly
associated with “producing sick animals, inhumane treatment, and providing
abhorrent living conditions.” A.B. 485, Assemb. Comm. on Bus. and Prof. Bill
Analysis at 5 (Ca, Apr. 17, 2017). Beginning in the 1990’s, the California Legislature
acted to protect consumers from the perils of purchasing puppy mill puppies by
requiring that retailers disclose the puppies’ state of origin and known medical
problems. After these requirements proved insufficient, the state enacted a complete
ban on the sale of puppies—excepting bona fide rescue animals—effective January 1,
2019 (hereinafter called the “Puppy Mill Ban”).
2.Plaintiffs are California consumers who purchased puppies held out as
bona fide rescue animals after the state’s ban went into effect. In reality, a private
broker collected the dogs from puppy mills across the county and laundered them
through sham non-profits in Iowa, Missouri, and California for ultimate sale to
unsuspecting consumers in California.
5:21-cv-02095
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 2 of 79 Page ID #:2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
3. Each of the Defendants have, both individually and collectively,
knowingly participated in the unlawful and unfair activity of trafficking puppy mill
puppies into California for compensation and private gain. Defendants falsified the
puppies’ sources and pretended to operate as, or work with, animal rescue
organizations to circumvent the restrictions of California law. This “puppy
laundering” scheme enabled Defendants to sell dogs to consumers who would not
have otherwise supported an illegal black-market enterprise, much less paid the
premium prices they did for their puppies.
4. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated California consumers to recover the damages they incurred from Defendants’
unlawful and unfair sale of puppy mill dogs and to disgorge all profits from
Defendants’ illegal puppy laundering ring.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute (“RICO”) statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et
seq., under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction).
6. Diversity subject matter jurisdiction also exists over this class action
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119
Stat. 4 (2005), amending 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). This class action involves: (a) 100 or
more members in the proposed class; (b) where at least some members of the
proposed class have different citizenship from some defendants; and (c) where the
claims of the proposed class members exceed the sum or value of five million dollars
($5,000,000) in the aggregate. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2) and (6).
7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties in this case.
Plaintiffs are citizens of California and reside in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo
Counties. Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with California, avail
themselves of the laws of the state, and distribute and sell dogs within the district.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 3 of 79 Page ID #:3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
Many acts complained of herein occurred in the district, including the illegal and
deceptive sale of puppies.
8. Venue is proper in this Court. Substantial acts in furtherance of the
alleged improper conduct, including the illegal and deceptive sale of puppies,
occurred in this district.
9. Concurrently with the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit
pursuant to Cal. Civil Code § 1780(d) regarding the propriety of venue. See Ex. A.
PARTIES
I. Plaintiffs.
10. Plaintiff Rebecca Carey is a California consumer and resident of Santa
Barbara County. Carey purchased a Cockapoo puppy, whom she named Sonnie, from
an Animal Kingdom pet store in January 2019. Animal Kingdom represented that
Sonnie came from Bark Adoptions Rescue, and Carey believed Sonnie was a rescue
puppy. In truth, Sonnie came from a puppy mill, which is likely why she now suffers
from permanent back and spine problems. Carey would not have purchased Sonnie if
she knew she was sold in violation of California’s Puppy Mill Ban and she never
would have knowingly spent her money in support of a black market puppy trade.
11. Plaintiff Cody Latzer is a California consumer and resident of San Luis
Obispo County. Latzer purchased an Australian cattle dog, whom he named Sadie,
from an Animal Kingdom pet store in March 2019. Animal Kingdom represented that
Sadie came from Pet Connect Rescue and Latzer believed the puppy was a rescue. In
fact, Pet Connect Rescue is a sham and Sadie came from a puppy mill. Like Carey,
Latzer would not have supported Defendants’ black market puppy trade with his hard-
earned money if Defendants had not lied about Sadie’s origins to evade the Puppy
Mill Ban.
12. Plaintiffs file this Complaint in their individual capacity, and as a class
action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. They, along with other
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 4 of 79 Page ID #:4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
class members who may be named as class representatives at the time a motion is filed
to certify the proposed class, will represent the following class:
All persons who, on or after January 1, 2019, purchased dogs in the State
of California supplied by J.A.K.’s. Excluded from the Class are (1)
Defendants and their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors; and (2) the judge to whom this case is assigned and the judge’s staff.
13. On December 9, 2021, a reasonable time after learning that the
puppies sold by Animal Kingdom were in fact knowingly acquired from
commercial breeders and falsely sold as legitimate “rescues,” Plaintiffs notified
Animal Kingdom through certified mail, return receipt requested of its alleged
violations of the California Consumer Remedies Act pursuant to California Civil
Code § 1782(a), including its unlawful, unfair and deceptive conduct in
connection with Plaintiffs’ purchase of Sonnie and Sadie. Plaintiffs demanded
that Animal Kingdom rectify the problems associated with the sale. As of the
filing of this Complaint, Animal Kingdom has failed to adequately respond to
these demands and has failed to give notice to all affected consumers, as required
by California Civil Code § 1782.
II. Defendants.
Central Broker and Supplier Defendants.
14. Defendant J.A.K.’s Puppies, Inc. (“J.A.K.’s”), named after its founding
members, Jolyn Noethe and Kimberly Dolphin, is a for-profit puppy broker that
churns through thousands of designer and pure breed puppies annually.
15. J.A.K.’s acquires its puppies from puppy mills. Indeed, J.A.K.’s
knowingly obtains and actively seeks to utilize puppies from puppy mills, including
breeders without United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) licenses, for
resale to pet stores.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 5 of 79 Page ID #:5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
16. In 2018 alone, J.A.K.’s is known to have sourced over 5,700 puppies
from a mix of licensed and unlicensed breeders across the United States. This number
only includes puppies whose purchase was documented in public record and is likely a
mere portion of the puppies that J.A.K.’s acquired and sold that year.
17. J.A.K.’s is located at 2685 Grant Ave., Britt, Iowa 50423. As a broker,
J.A.K.’s is inspected by the USDA; an inspection report from August 2020 shows 254
puppies on site.
18. J.A.K.’s was a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Iowa State Attorney
General regarding a puppy laundering ring that funneled commercially bred puppies
through a sham non-profit, Hobo K-9 Rescue, before being sold to unsuspecting
consumers throughout the country (“Iowa AG lawsuit”).
19. Defendant Jolyn Noethe is Co-President, Secretary, and Director of
J.A.K.’s. She was a defendant in the Iowa AG lawsuit. She is a resident of Britt, Iowa.
20. Defendant Kimberly Dolphin is Co-President, Secretary, and Director of
J.A.K.’s. She was a defendant in the Iowa AG lawsuit. She is a resident of Britt, Iowa.
21. Defendants Noethe, Dolphin, and J.A.K.’s are collectively referred to as
“J.A.K.’s.”
Sham Rescue Defendants.
22. Defendant Russell Kirk was President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Director
of Rescue Pets Iowa Corp., a sham Iowa nonprofit formed more than a year after
California’s ban on the sale of commercially bred puppies was enacted, and just two
weeks before the ban’s January 1, 2019 effective date. Kirk was a defendant in the
Iowa AG lawsuit. Kirk is a resident of Ottumwa, Iowa.
23. Defendant Rescue Pets Iowa Corp. (“Rescue Pets Iowa”) purported to be
a corporation “organized exclusively for charitable … purposes … [t]o rescue pets.”
Kirk was Rescue Pets Iowa’s sole employee and member.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 6 of 79 Page ID #:6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
24. Rescue Pets Iowa was a corporate shell. Its only purpose was to serve as
a conduit through which J.A.K.’s funneled the legal title of commercially bred dogs so
that they could be labeled as “rescues” before reaching consumers in California.
25. Rescue Pets Iowa was a defendant in the Iowa AG lawsuit. Rescue Pets
Iowa was located in Ottumwa, Iowa at the same address as Kirk’s personal residence.
26. Defendants Kirk and Rescue Pets Iowa are collectively referred to as
“Rescue Pets Iowa.”
27. Kirk is also a member of TBHF LLC d/b/a The Pet X Change, an Iowa
limited liability company (“TBHF LLC”).
28. While Defendant TBHF LLC purports to be in the business of “software
development and services,” it played an active role in Defendants’ illicit puppy
laundering scheme. TBHF LLC created the documents that Defendants relied upon to
disguise their scheme and paid for the Certificates of Veterinary Inspections that were
required to transfer the fake rescue puppies from Iowa to California.
29. TBHF LLC is located in Britt, Iowa, at the same address as Defendant
Noethe’s personal residence.
30. Defendant Bark Adoptions is a California corporation, California
Corporate Number C4215365, located in Menifee, California. Bark Adoptions was
formed in November of 2018, also shortly before California’s ban on the sale of
commercially bred puppies went into effect on January 1, 2019.
31. Defendant Stephanie Vaughn is Vice President of Bark Adoptions. She is
a resident of Winchester, California.
32. Defendant Ana Diaz is President of Bark Adoptions. She resides in
Menifee, California at the same address as Bark Adoptions. She is the sister of
Amilcar Chavez, a California pet store owner and operator who regularly sold weeks-
old puppies to California consumers after California’s ban on the sale of commercially
bred puppies went into effect on January 1, 2019.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 7 of 79 Page ID #:7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
33. Bark Adoptions is a corporate shell. It is a conduit through which
Defendants funneled the legal title of commercially bred dogs so that they can be
labeled as “rescues” before reaching consumers in California.
34. Defendants Vaughn, Diaz and Bark Adoptions are collectively referred to
as “Bark Adoptions.”
35. Defendant Pet Connect Rescue, Inc. (“Pet Connect Rescue”) is a
Missouri-based sham animal rescue organization incorporated under Missouri law on
January 26, 2018. Pet Connect Rescue has acquired hundreds to thousands of dogs
from J.A.K.’s and other puppy mill sources and, knowing the dogs’ puppy mill
origins, transferred the dogs to California pet stores for compensation, in violation of
the Puppy Mill Ban.
36. Defendants Ray Rothman and Alysia Rothman are the co-owners and co-
operators of Pet Connect Rescue. Both Ray and Alysia Rothman are residents of
Missouri.
37. Defendants Alysia and Ray Rothman and Pet Connect Rescue are
collectively referred to as “Pet Connect Rescue.”
38. Defendants Rescue Pets Iowa, Bark Adoptions, and Pet Connect Rescue
are collectively referred to as the “Sham Rescues.”
Interstate Transporter Defendants.
39. Defendant Subject Enterprise, Inc. is an entity organized under the laws
of Iowa located at 165 – 210th Street, Wesley, Iowa 50483 and incorporated in June
2018. Subject Enterprise, Inc. is a transportation company that exclusively serves
J.A.K.’s and ships J.A.K.’s puppies into California for sale to pet stores. Subject
Enterprise, Inc. is registered as a Class T – Carrier with the United States Department
of Agriculture.
40. Defendant Coda Subject is the Director of Subject Enterprise, Inc. He is
the nephew of Defendant Jolyn Noethe. He is a resident of Iowa.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 8 of 79 Page ID #:8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
41. Defendants Coda Subject and Subject Enterprise, Inc. are collectively
referred to as “Subject Enterprise.”
Pet Store Defendants.
42. Defendant Micada, Inc. d/b/a Animal Kingdom Pet Shop (“Micada” or
“Animal Kingdom”) was a California corporation operating at least three retail pet
stores during the relevant time: (1) 1675 West Grand Avenue in Grover Beach and (2)
651 Dolliver Street in Pismo Beach, both located in the County of San Luis Obispo;
and (3) 142 Town Center East in Santa Maria, located in the County of Santa Barbara.
Animal Kingdom repeatedly violated the Puppy Mill Ban by acquiring from one or
more of the other Defendants hundreds of puppies and then selling them through its
pet stores after the Puppy Mill Ban went into effect.
43. Defendant Adam Tipton was the owner of Animal Kingdom. Tipton is a
resident of California.
44. Defendant Animal Kingdom, Defendant Tipton and any and all pet stores
operated by Animal Kingdom are collectively referred to as “Animal Kingdom.”
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I. The California Puppy Mill Ban.
45. On January 1, 2019, California’s ban on the sale of animals sourced from
large scale commercial breeders—puppy mills—came into effect. Cal. Health &
Safety Code § 122354.5 (“Puppy Mill Ban”).
46. The Puppy Mill Ban requires that pet stores only sell dogs from rescue
groups or animal shelters:
A pet store operator shall not sell a live dog, cat, or rabbit in a pet store
unless the animal was obtained from a public animal control agency or
shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane
society shelter, or rescue group that is in a cooperative agreement with at
least one private or public shelter . . . . See Health & Safety Code § 122354.5(a).
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 9 of 79 Page ID #:9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
47. A “rescue group” is defined as “an organization that is tax exempt under
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and that does not obtain animals from
breeders or brokers for compensation.” See Health & Safety Code § 122354.5(j).
48. “Rescue group” does not include puppy mills. A “puppy mill” has been
defined as a “dog breeding operation in which the health of the dogs is disregarded in
order to maintain a low overhead and maximize profits.” Avensen v. Zegart, 577 F.
Supp. 958, 960 (D. Minn. 1984).
49. When enacting the Puppy Mill Ban, the California Assembly and Senate
referred to “puppy mills” as a “common term[] for large commercial breeding
facilities that mass produce animals for sale at retail markets,” and expressed concerns
for the health and welfare of dogs at such facilities. A.B. 485, Senate Floor Analyses
at 3 (Ca, Sept. 9, 2017); A.B. 485, Assemb. Floor Analyses at 3 (Ca, Sept. 13, 2017).
50. The standard practice for puppy mills involves keeping mother dogs in
cages that are only six inches longer than their bodies for their entire life, with no
requirement that they ever leave them. Dozens to hundreds of mother dogs are stacked
in rows and columns of cages, covered in waste and exposed to the elements, without
protection from the heat or cold. These mother dogs give birth to several litters of
puppies a year, with no limit on the number of times they can be forced to breed. The
puppies are taken away from the mother when they are six to eight weeks old and
transported long distances to retail pet stores. Many die en route or face a shortened
life from illness and disease from the mills’ unsanitary and overcrowded facilities, or
inbreeding.
51. Passed on October 13, 2017, the Puppy Mill Ban was meant to eliminate
the supply of puppies from facilities that “are typically operated with an emphasis on
profits over animal welfare,” wherein “dogs often live in substandard conditions,
housed for their entire reproductive lives in cages or runs, provided little to no positive
human interaction or other forms of environmental enrichment, and minimal to no
veterinary care.” See A.B. 485, Senate Floor Analyses at 3 (Ca, Sept. 9, 2017). The
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 10 of 79 Page ID #:10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-11- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
California legislature anticipated that consumers’ demand for puppies would readily
be met by “the availability of shelter animals in California as a source for either
adoption or for sale in a pet store establishment.” Id.
52. Transitioning away from the puppy mill industry has both animal welfare
and consumer protection goals. As the Iowa Attorney General’s Office explained in its
complaint in the Iowa AG lawsuit, consumers “choose not to buy puppies originating
from [puppy mills],” in part because “consumers who purchase expensive puppies
bred within a puppy mill are less assured that the dogs will live average lifespans,
since puppy mill breeding operations often result in illnesses that reduce the quality
and length of puppies’ lives.” See State of Iowa v. Hobo K9 Rescue et al., Pet No.
05771 EQCE084294 at 3 (filed Mar. 18, 2019).
II. Embedded Puppy Mill Industry Players Scheme to Circumvent the
Chicago Ban on Puppy Mill Sales.
53. California’s Puppy Mill Ban is not unique. Like California, numerous
counties, states, and municipalities have met consumer concerns with the sale of
puppy mill animals by restricting or banning the sale of commercially bred animals
outright.
54. In 2014, Chicago enacted its own ban prohibiting the sale of dogs that
were not obtained from a rescue organization. See CHI, ILL., LOCAL ORDINANCES ch. 4
§ 384-015(b).
55. To circumvent Chicago’s ban, J.A.K.’s—one of the country’s largest
puppy mill brokers—resorted to “puppy laundering,” or “the purposeful masking of
the genuine source of merchandise puppies from consumers and law enforcement.”
State of Iowa v. Hobo K9 Rescue et al., Pet No. 05771 EQCE084294 at 4 (hereinafter
“Iowa AG Petition”), available at
https://www.iowaattorneygeneral.gov/media/cms/hobo_k9_final_petition_F741B0336
3499.pdf. J.A.K.’s funneled the commercially bred puppies’ legal title through Hobo
K-9 Rescue (“Hobo K-9), an Iowa-based sham non-profit “rescue” operated by
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 11 of 79 Page ID #:11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-12- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
Defendants Noethe and Dolphin. By funneling the puppies through a sham rescue of
its own creation, J.A.K.’s was able to mischaracterize them as genuine “rescues”
before delivering them to Chicago, and thereby “frustrate and circumvent laws
protecting consumers – for profit.” Id. at ¶ 57.
56. J.A.K.’s used Hobo K-9 to sell almost 1,300 puppies, almost all of
whom entered Chicago and other banned jurisdictions under the pretense of having
been “rescued” from none other than J.A.K.’s. See id. at ¶¶ 27-29.
57. Unlike genuine rescues, the sales had hallmarks of the for-profit puppy
mill industry. Hobo K-9 provided pedigrees with the sale of each puppy, transferred
most of the animals to for-profit pet stores who sold them to consumers for nearly
$4,000 each, and did not spay or neuter the eight- to ten-week old puppies. Id. at ¶¶
31-33.
58. J.A.K.’s benefited significantly from the Chicago scheme. It received
substantial sums for the puppies, through payments that Hobo K-9 received from
Chicago pet stores and marked for transfer to J.A.K.’s as “procurement fees.” Hobo
K-9 transferred more than $710,000 of Chicago pet store payments to J.A.K.’s. See id.
at ¶¶ 34, 39-41.
59. On March 18, 2019, the Iowa Attorney General exposed the Chicago
scheme, lodging a formal complaint against J.A.K.’s, Defendant Noethe, and
Defendant Dolphin, alleging they were “integral actors of a national puppy laundering
ring emanating from within Iowa.” Iowa AG Petition at ¶ 16.
60. But the Iowa Attorney General’s investigation and enforcement did not
deter J.A.K.’s. Instead, it moved quickly “to obscure ongoing fraudulent activities the
Attorney General ha[d] been investigating since June 2018 by creating a brand-new
sham charity called Rescue Pets Iowa Corp.” Id. ¶ 61.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 12 of 79 Page ID #:12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-13- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
III. Defendants Devise New Scheme and Shell Companies to Deceive
California Consumers.
61. With the Chicago scheme unraveling, and with Rescue Pets Iowa poised
to continue rebranding J.A.K.’s puppy mill animals as fake rescues, J.A.K.’s and its
associates refocused their attention to a California-based distribution ring that it had
been exploiting for years.
62. Since at least July 2017, J.A.K.’s had been using Hobo K-9 to launder
hundreds of puppies to pet stores throughout California, including to those owned by
pet store moguls Amilcar Chavez and David Salinas. At the time of those transfers,
California was home to approximately thirty-six municipal and county-level bans on
the sale of commercially bred animals. J.A.K.’s, acting in concert with its associates,
knowingly laundered puppies into California through Hobo K-9 to purposefully evade
those bans and to deceive consumers into believing they were buying genuine rescues.
63. But when the Iowa Attorney General disrupted its ability to use Hobo K-
9 for puppy laundering, and with the January 1, 2019 effective date of California’s
Puppy Mill Ban looming, J.A.K.’s and its associates recognized that they needed to
establish a more elaborate network of sham rescues to perpetuate their profit-making
deception in California.
64. J.A.K.’s devised and coordinated the new scheme, consisting of new
sham organizations and associates, at least six months before the Puppy Mill Ban
went into effect on January 1, 2019. Defendants knowingly and intentionally worked
in concert with each other and concocted at least two sham rescue organizations, a
transport company, and a new payment and documentation system for the purpose of
funneling puppy mill dogs disguised as rescues into California for the common
purpose of profiting from their illegal sale.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 13 of 79 Page ID #:13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-14- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
i. J.A.K.’s Acquires Puppies from Usual Roster of Commercial
Breeders.
65. J.A.K.’s first step, as the broker of the elaborate puppy laundering
scheme, was to acquire puppies from its usual roster of commercial breeders, i.e.,
puppy mills, to transfer into California as purported “rescues.”
66. The breeders whose dogs J.A.K.’s selected to launder into California
operate some of the worst facilities in the country. One such for-profit breeder is
Amos Schwartz, who in 2013 was in the Humane Society of the United States’
“Horrible Hundred” list of the worst puppy mills in the United States. According to
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 14 of 79 Page ID #:14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-15- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
the Humane Society, the dogs held at his facility have been documented as
underweight and left “shivering in the cold” with “open wounds.”
67. Another example is AJ’s Angels Inc. AJ’s Angels houses approximately
400 dogs at a time, who have been observed to exhibit neurotic behavioral patterns
due to their inadequate enclosures. Pictures of AJ’s Angels’ breeding dogs are
included below.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 15 of 79 Page ID #:15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-16- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
ii. J.A.K.’s Coordinates with Its Associates to Launder Puppies through
a Sham Non-Profit.
68. After acquiring dogs from puppy mills, J.A.K.’s funneled the dogs’ legal
title through a sham non-profit which it helped create to enable other participants in
the scheme to falsely label the puppy mill animals as “rescues.”
69. To disguise its involvement with a sham rescue of its own making,
J.A.K.’s colluded with Defendant Noethe’s and Defendant Dolphin’s close friends and
associates to outsource the “rescue” of the puppy mill dogs whom J.A.K.’s brokers.
70. One such associate was Defendant Russell Kirk, who, colluding with
J.A.K.’s, willingly and knowingly agreed to become the owner and operator of the
new sham rescue, Rescue Pets Iowa. Rescue Pets Iowa began operating in November
2018, just weeks before the Puppy Mill Ban went into effect.
71. At all material times, Rescue Pets Iowa functioned solely as a rescue on
paper. It never took physical custody of an animal it purported to rescue. It did not
send anyone to visit J.A.K.’s to view the puppies as a matter of course. And it did not
otherwise interact with the puppies it was “rescuing.”
72. Defendants J.A.K.’s and Defendant Kirk used Defendant Rescue Pets
Iowa as a vehicle to deceptively rebrand puppy mill animals as fake “rescues” in order
to circumvent consumer protection laws in various jurisdictions and even transferred
the puppies from Rescue Pets Iowa on to other sham rescues prior to eventual sale in
pet stores. The scheme was designed to supplant and improve upon the Chicago
laundering ring by funneling puppies through multiple levels of sham non-profits
across states. Indeed, Defendants JAK’s and Kirk created an elaborate vertical scheme
whereby each of the necessary steps in the puppy laundering—purchase from puppy
mills, rebranding of puppies as rescues, transport of such rebranded puppies, and sale
of such puppies to consumers through pet stores—was perpetrated by knowing co-
conspirators/associates. The reasons for doing so were three-fold: the deception and
process could be controlled by Defendants, profits would be maximized in a
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 16 of 79 Page ID #:16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-17- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
jurisdiction otherwise off-limits to Defendants because of the Puppy Mill Ban, and
the chances of being caught through the elaborate structure would be minimized.
73. While J.A.K.’s took a lead role in coordinating the puppy acquisition
from private breeders, transfer of ownership to Rescue Pets Iowa, and distribution to
California pet stores process—i.e., the puppy laundering—J.A.K.’s associates,
including each Defendant, knowingly and willingly played their role in concert with
each other and with the common purpose of achieving the integrated scheme.
74. J.A.K.’s identified the amount and type of puppies to “send” to Rescue
Pets Iowa each week for “rescue.” As shown through emails exchanged with J.A.K.’s
for each batch of commercially bred puppies, Rescue Pets Iowa willingly accepted
and facilitated these paper transfers. Each animal “rescued” by Rescue Pets Iowa
came solely from J.A.K.’s.
75. J.A.K.’s, with the active assistance of Defendants Kirk and TBHF LLC,
arranged the puppies’ veterinary inspection and care prior to transport to another out-
of-state “rescue.”
76. J.A.K.’s also retained physical control over the puppies selected for
“rescue.” The dogs never left J.A.K.’s facility until a transport company, Defendant
Subject Enterprise, arrived to deliver them out of state.
77. Indeed, many of the Certificates of Veterinary Inspection required for
interstate transport of each shipment of puppies purportedly sent from Rescue Pets
Iowa to California were signed by Jolyn Noethe, even though she had no official role
in the operation of Rescue Pets Iowa. This was done with Rescue Pets Iowa’s
knowledge and acquiescence.
78. In March 2019, a California corporation named Volar Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the non-profit Bailing Out Benji sued
Defendants Rescue Pets Iowa and Russell Kirk over their illegal, fraudulent sales of
puppy mill puppies in violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122354 (“Volar
Lawsuit”). In settling that lawsuit on October 6, 2021, Kirk agreed to refrain from re-
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 17 of 79 Page ID #:17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-18- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
organizing Rescue Pets Iowa or any other non-profit animal rescue organization and
agreed with Rescue Pets Iowa to refrain from acquiring, selling, or supplying any dogs
to Bark Adoptions, non-profits, animal rescue organizations, or pet stores in
California.
79. Similarly, as a condition of the resolution of the Iowa AG lawsuit,
Rescue Pets Iowa Corp. was forced to dissolve, which it did in October 2019.
80. If it had not been caught and sued, Rescue Pets Iowa Corp. would have
continued its fraudulent, illegal activities. Indeed, its principal, Defendant Kirk,
continued to participate in the puppy laundering scheme after the corporation was
dissolved.
81. Defendant Kirk’s involvement in the puppy laundering ring continued
through his operation of Defendant TBHF LLC, an Iowa limited liability company
serving the pet trade industry. Defendant Kirk runs TBHF LLC with his brother, who
is also Defendant Noethe’s romantic partner.
82. Defendants J.A.K.’s, Kirk, Rescue Pets Iowa , and TBHF LLC
coordinated to create invoices and meet USDA reporting requirements for the
shipment and sale of puppies, which allowed them to track groups of puppies acquired
by J.A.K.’s from purchase, to delivery, to their final destinations.
83. For example, Defendant TBHF LLC created documents tracking which
dogs from what commercial breeders would be transferred to Defendant Rescue Pets
Iowa; documents noting the breed and sex of dogs to enable the California pet stores
to select which to order; and documents facilitating the transport of the dogs into
California. TBHF LLC also paid for the veterinary inspections associated with the
Certificates of Veterinary Inspection needed for the puppies’ interstate transport from
Rescue Pets Iowa to California.
84. Defendants J.A.K.’s, Kirk, Rescue Pets Iowa, and TBHF LLC had
worked together before in laundering puppies in attempts to circumvent puppy mill
bans and deceive consumers. Years earlier, TBHF LLC played a similar role when it
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 18 of 79 Page ID #:18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-19- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
facilitated the laundering of puppies through Hobo K-9 Rescue into Chicago and
California, among other markets.
iii. J.A.K.’s, Kirk, and Rescue Pets Iowa Arrange the Transport of
Puppies to California.
85. As part of laundering the puppies through Defendant Rescue Pets Iowa,
Defendants J.A.K.’s, Kirk, and TBHF LLC arranged for the transport of animals to
California. They coordinated with Defendant Subject Enterprise (Noethe’s nephew,
Defendant Coda Subject, and his transport company, Subject Enterprise, Inc.) to pick
up the animals from J.A.K.’s facility and truck them to California.
86. Subject Enterprise, Inc., the transportation company created by
Defendant Coda Subject, was incorporated on June 1, 2018, six months before the
Puppy Mill Ban’s effective date. Subject Enterprise began shipping puppies for
J.A.K.’s that year, including into California.
87. Subject Enterprise is intimately linked with J.A.K.’s. Subject Enterprise
used vehicles it acquired from J.A.K.’s weeks after incorporating and finances its
business operations with loans guaranteed by Defendants Noethe and Dolphin.
Subject Enterprise primarily (if not exclusively) transported puppies brokered by
Defendant J.A.K.’s. In addition to transporting the puppies, Subject Enterprise played
an essential role in the scheme by collecting, concealing, and distributing funds among
Defendants and co-conspirators, as further described below.
iv. J.A.K.’s, Kirk, Rescue Pets Iowa, and Subject Enterprise Launder
the Puppies through a Second Sham Non-Profit.
88. After laundering the puppies’ legal title through Rescue Pets Iowa,
J.A.K.’s arranged for Subject Enterprise to take them to Bark Adoptions, a sham
nonprofit in California.
89. Defendant Bark Adoptions was a key thoroughfare in California for
J.A.K.’s eventual sales in California pet stores. Defendants Stephanie Vaughn and
Ana Diaz formed Bark Adoptions in November 2018. Defendant Vaughn met
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 19 of 79 Page ID #:19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-20- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
Defendant Kirk while visiting family in Iowa, and thereafter served as the point
person for Rescue Pets Iowa. She handled all communications with Defendant Kirk
for the placement of “rescued” animals sourced from private breeders through
J.A.K.’s. Defendant Vaughn even chose which California pet stores to send the
puppies to.
90. Like Rescue Pets Iowa, Bark Adoptions functioned as a paper waystation
so that the puppies from J.A.K.’s’ distribution for ultimate sale could receive the
veneer of a nonprofit “that does not obtain animals from breeders or brokers for
compensation,” Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122354.5(j), without ever obtaining
physical custody of the puppies.
91. Though stylized as a rescue, Bark Adoptions never fostered puppies. It
never had an individual human adopter rescue one of its puppies, and stated it was
“not open to the public.”
92. Bark Adoptions only rescued approximately five dogs from a source
providing true homeless or unwanted animals in total. On information and belief,
Bark Adoptions intended to use these few bona fide rescues as a front to help conceal
the sham nature of its operation.
93. Bark Adoptions’ primary purpose was not to serve as a rescue of
homeless animals, but to help launder and facilitate the sale of J.A.K.’s puppy mill
puppies in California pet stores.
94. Bark Adoptions was compensated for performing its role in Defendants’
California puppy laundering scheme. Bark Adoptions received substantial payments
for each puppy it “rescued” from J.A.K.’s, despite having little to no overhead and
almost no custody or care over the puppies sent briefly to its physical location.
95. The San Diego Humane Society and San Luis Obispo County Animal
Services conducted investigations in early 2019 which identified Bark Adoptions’
prominent role in the puppy laundering scheme. The investigations cite Certificates of
Veterinary Inspection that show nearly all the dogs supplied by Bark Adoptions to
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 20 of 79 Page ID #:20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-21- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
California pet stores were purebred or designer puppies less than three months old.
See, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTIj9T3Ic14&app=desktop;
https://ksby.com/news/ksby-investigates/2019/02/28/closing-the-pet-shop-loophole.
To those familiar with the puppy mill industry, these characteristics suggested the
puppies were not “rescues” but in fact from puppy mill breeders’ and brokers’ regular
inventory.
96. When investigations into Bark Adoptions’ role in the sale of puppy mill
animals in California began in early 2019, J.A.K.’s and Defendant Kirk apparently
sought cover by diverting a portion of their puppy laundering to Defendant Pet
Connect Rescue.
97. Based in Joplin, Missouri, Pet Connect Rescue was founded in January
2018 by Defendants Ray and Alysia Rothman, previous pet store owners who had
acquired puppies directly from J.A.K.’s for sale in their Connecticut store.
98. Pet Connect Rescue functioned as an additional or alternative sham
rescue through which J.A.K.’s,’ Rescue Pets Iowa, and Defendant Kirk would ship
J.A.K.’s puppies into California.
99. Pet Connect Rescue assumed a more prominent role in the California
laundering scheme after Bark Adoptions asked Defendant Ray Rothman, Pet Connect
Rescue’s operator, to ship puppies to California pet stores in early 2019.
100. Rescue Pets Iowa, through Defendant Kirk, contacted Defendant Ray
Rothman by telephone and electronic mail to offer J.A.K.’s’ puppies as a source of
these so-called rescues.
101. Pet Connect Rescue merely served as another layer of a sham rescue to
conceal the true origin of J.A.K.’s puppies. Pet Connect Rescue did not host adoption
events or provide any other rescue services to the puppies sent from J.A.K.’s through
Rescue Pets Iowa, things which real rescues typically perform.
102. Like Bark Adoptions, Pet Connect Rescue never took physical custody of
the puppies it received from J.A.K.’s through Rescue Pets Iowa. In fact, it could not
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 21 of 79 Page ID #:21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-22- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
take physical custody because Pet Connect Rescue existed solely on paper, with no
physical location.
103. Rather, after receiving the legal title to J.A.K.’s puppies, Pet Connect
Rescue sold the puppies to California pet stores including Defendant Animal
Kingdom, arranging for delivery through Defendant Subject Enterprise.
v. At the Direction of J.A.K.’s and With the Aid of Other Defendants,
Sham Rescue Defendants Funnel Commercially Bred Puppies to
California Pet Stores.
104. Using the elaborate, carefully crafted puppy laundering scheme described
above, J.A.K.’s and its co-defendants exported “bunches of pure and designer breeds”
into California, “apparently replicating the same puppy laundering activities as []
Hobo K-9 Rescue.” Iowa AG Petition at ¶ 64.
105. From November 30, 2018, through September 9, 2019, J.A.K.’s, through
and with each’s knowledge of the puppy laundering scheme and in concert with each
other, Subject Enterprise, TBHF LLC, Rescue Pets Iowa, and Pet Connect Rescue,
sent more than 2,000 puppies to pet stores in California, either directly or by way of
Bark Adoptions.
106. In February and March 2019, for example, Pet Connect Rescue
“received” approximately 170 animals in four shipments labeled as coming from
Rescue Pets Iowa, but in reality sourced from commercial breeders and puppy mills
by J.A.K.’s. Pet Connect Rescue then funneled these puppies for sale in California pet
stores, including at Defendant Animal Kingdom’s stores.
107. Pet Connect Rescue had substantial business funneling puppies into
California. In 2019 and 2020, it laundered 8-to-12-week-old puppies from commercial
breeders to California pet stores on a weekly basis.
108. Bark Adoptions first acquired puppies funneled from J.A.K.’s through
Rescue Pets Iowa on November 30, 2018, when it acted as a brief waystation for 57
puppies delivered from Iowa by Subject Enterprise. Deliveries occurred on at least
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 22 of 79 Page ID #:22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-23- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
three different occasions prior to 2019, ensuring that pet stores would have purported
“rescues” in stock on the Puppy Mill Ban’s effective date.
109. J.A.K.’s always directed each act of puppy laundering, with each of the
Defendants, its associates, knowingly and willfully performing their part in the
elaborate scheme. For example, from at least January 6, 2019, until April 28, 2019,
Defendant Noethe, through J.A.K.’s’ email account, sent 13 emails to Defendant Kirk
in his role at Defendant Rescue Pets Iowa requesting placement of puppies for
“rescue,” to which Kirk would signal his consent/agreement to place such puppies.
110. Rescue Pets Iowa, in turn, emailed Defendant Bark Adoptions at
J.A.K.’s’ behest to communicate how many puppies J.A.K.’s had selected to send
there. The emails—which were the only “rescuing” Rescue Pets Iowa did for J.A.K.’s’
puppies—completed Rescue Pets Iowa’s role as a conduit through which the dogs’
legal title passed so that they could be labeled as “rescues” before they reached
consumers in California.
111. In exchange for these services, Rescue Pets Iowa received, at minimum,
compensation through the other Defendants’ paid use of TBHF LLC to generate the
invoices and documentation necessary to track—and disguise—the puppies’ shipment
and sale, specifically Defendants J.A.K.’s, Rescue Pets Iowa, Subject Enterprise, Bark
Adoptions, Pet Connect Rescue, and Animal Kingdom. The use of TBHF LLC by
these Defendants generated income for TBHF LLC.
112. TBHF LLC was paid in part on a per-dog basis. The more puppies it
helped to launder into California, the more money it received from the other members
of the scheme. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kirk used the money that he
received from his involvement in TBHF LLC to pay for Rescue Pets Iowa’s
operational costs, which were necessary to maintain its appearance of legitimacy and,
thereby, promote Defendants’ scheme.
113. From November 30, 2018, until September 2019, Bark Adoptions
received weekly shipments of 30–119 puppies from J.A.K.’s through Rescue Pets
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 23 of 79 Page ID #:23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-24- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
Iowa. Bark Adoptions never turned away animals that J.A.K.’s sent to California via
Rescue Pets Iowa.
114. From November 30, 2018 until at least September 2019, Subject
Enterprise transported each shipment of puppies to Bark Adoptions.
115. Each of these shipments were grueling, 30+ hour affairs for the weeks-
old puppies transported from Iowa to California.
116. Puppies did not survive the trip. According to Subject Enterprise notes, a
chihuahua was “dropped and died,” another “puppy died on west coast truck,” and a
pet store refused to pay for a puppy who “died in transit.” In addition, when a puppy
passed away, Subject Enterprise would note the financial loss for J.A.K.’s.
117. For J.A.K.’s, Subject Enterprise, and the Sham Rescues, the puppies’
deaths were a routine cost of doing business.
118. For the puppies who survived the journey to Bark Adoptions, the trip was
not complete. Upon arrival in California, each shipment of puppies from J.A.K.’s and
Rescue Pets Iowa and/or Pet Connect Rescue spent two to three hours at Bark
Adoption’s physical location—a garage operated out of Defendant Diaz’s home
outfitted with 20 piled dog cages. Less than one percent of puppies brought to Bark
Adoptions stayed longer than 24 hours before being redirected to pet stores.
119. Each shipment of puppies would be transported from Bark Adoptions by
Subject Enterprise in the same vehicle it arrived in and taken to California pet stores
for sale.
120. Defendants continued to direct shipments of puppies from the Midwest to
California into 2020. Documents obtained from the State of Iowa show that in January
2020, J.A.K.’s trucked eight eight-week-old designer breed puppies to an animal
dealer based in Jamul, California. In addition, volunteers tracking the shipment of
puppies to Southern California puppy stores obtained evidence that Pet Connect
Rescue transferred puppies to a pet store in Santee, California, in May 2020.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 24 of 79 Page ID #:24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-25- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
IV. California Pet Stores Display the Puppies as “Rescues.”
121. Defendants Bark Adoptions and Pet Connect Rescue funneled the
puppies acquired by J.A.K.’s to various pet stores in California, including Defendant
Animal Kingdom’s pet stores.
i. Defendant Animal Kingdom’s Fraudulent Sales.
122. Defendant Animal Kingdom operated at least three retail pet stores in
California during J.A.K.’s’ establishment of a puppy laundering ring.
123. For years, Defendant Animal Kingdom relied on puppy mill brokers like
J.A.K.’s to supply the puppies it sold in pet stores. When the Puppy Mill Ban was
being considered by the California legislature, Animal Kingdom owner Defendant
Adam Tipton decided to join forces with David Salinas to fight against the proposed
bill. Both pet store owners contributed to lobbying efforts against the bill so they
could maintain their business model.
124. After the law passed, Animal Kingdom knowingly and intentionally
agreed to conspire with J.A.K.’s and the other Defendants to circumvent the puppy
mill ban and joined J.A.K.’s’ puppy laundering scheme so that it could continue to
profit from the sale of weeks-old puppies.
125. In 2019, Animal Kingdom was a defendant in the Volar Lawsuit,
concerning its illegal, fraudulent sales of puppy mill puppies in violation of the Puppy
Mill Ban. In settling the Volar Lawsuit, Animal Kingdom agreed to cease acquiring
animals from Bark Adoptions, Rescue Pets Iowa, and J.A.K.’s—among others—and
to comply with the Puppy Mill Ban. Had Animal Kingdom not been sued, it would
have continued its illegal puppy laundering activities.
ii. Salinas Pet Stores’ Fraudulent Sales.
126. Defendants Bark Adoptions and Pet Connect Rescue also funneled the
puppies acquired by J.A.K.’s to stores associated with David Salinas. Salinas is a Utah
resident and a pet store mogul who owns and operates pet stores in California
including Broadway Puppies, The Fancy Puppy, Hello Puppies, Pups & Pets, and
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 25 of 79 Page ID #:25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-26- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
National City Puppy. Salinas repeatedly violated the Puppy Mill Ban by sourcing
puppies from puppy mills through J.A.K.s,’ Rescue Pets Iowa, and Pet Connect
Rescue for sale in California pet stores owned by him or companies he owns or
manages, including The Puppy Store LLC and Yellow Store Enterprises, LLC.
127. Salinas also operates SoCal Puppy Adoptions, Inc. (“SoCal Puppy”).
SoCal Puppy is a nonprofit organization organized in California on January 9, 2019,
to “[f]ind permanent suitable new homes for stray, abandoned, and surrendered dogs.”
SoCal Puppy has shared the same address as Salinas’s pet stores Pups & Pets, located
at 50 Town Center Parkway, Santee CA 92071, and National City Puppy, located at
1430 East Plaza Blvd., Suite E20, National City, CA 91950. SoCal Puppy repeatedly
violated the Puppy Mill Ban by acquiring from one or more of the Defendants
hundreds of puppies and then selling them through Salinas’s pet stores after the Puppy
Mill Ban went into effect.
128. The California stores Broadway Puppies, The Fancy Puppy, Hello
Puppies, Pups & Pets, and National City Puppy, together with The Puppy Store, LLC,
SoCal Puppy, and Yellow Store Enterprises, LLC, are hereinafter referred to as the
“Salinas Pet Stores.”
129. The Salinas Pet Stores also acquired puppies from J.A.K.’s through
Defendants Rescue Pets Iowa, Bark Adoptions, and Pet Connect Rescue during 2019
through at least May 2020.
130. Each of the Salinas Pet Stores also sold puppies from Pet Connect Rescue
in 2019 and 2020.
131. Richard Robles Pena, the General Manager in charge of acquiring
puppies for the Salinas Pet Stores, testified that during 2019 the California stores
sometimes obtained their puppies from Pet Connect Rescue.
132. In mid-2020, several of the Salinas Pet Stores were cited by local
authorities for violating the Puppy Mill Ban and/or enjoined by state courts from
continuing their illegal sales. Shortly thereafter, these stores shut down. Had they not
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 26 of 79 Page ID #:26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-27- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
been caught and shut down, the Salinas Pet Stores would have continued illegal,
fraudulent sales in violation of the Puppy Mill Ban.
iii. The Chavez Pet Stores’ Fraudulent Sales.
133. Another pet store chain coordinating with Defendants Bark Adoptions
and other Defendants in the puppy laundering scheme was owned and operated by
Amilcar Chavez.
134. Amilcar Chavez is the former Manager and operator of Bark Avenue and
Bark Boutique, two California pet stores that sold weeks-old puppies. He is a brother
of Defendant Ana Diaz, the President of Bark Adoptions. Chavez repeatedly violated
the Puppy Mill Ban by sourcing dogs from puppy mills through J.A.K.s’ and Rescue
Pets Iowa for sale in his California pet stores. He is a resident of California.
135. Jasmin Ramirez, former Manager at Bark Avenue and Bark Boutique,
likewise repeatedly violated the Puppy Mill Ban by sourcing puppies from puppy
mills through J.A.K.s’ and Rescue Pets Iowa for sale in the pet stores.
136. Bark Avenue Pets, LLC (“Bark Avenue”) was a limited liability
company located at 200 East Via Rancho Parkway, Escondido, California, 92025, the
same address as Bark Avenue, the California pet store and sham rescue owned and
operated by Chavez and Ramirez through Bark Avenue Pets, LLC and various other
shell entities. The company formed on December 22, 2018, days before the Puppy
Mill Ban went into effect. Ramirez was a member of Bark Avenue Pets, LLC. Upon
information and belief, Bark Avenue Pets, LLC repeatedly violated the Puppy Mill
Ban by acquiring from one or more of the other Defendants hundreds of puppies and
then selling them through its pet stores after the Puppy Mill Ban went into effect.
137. Escondido Pets, LLC was a limited liability company located at 200 East
Via Rancho Parkway, Escondido, California, 92025, the same address as Bark
Avenue, the California pet store and sham rescue owned and operated by Chavez and
Ramirez through Escondido Pets, LLC and various other shell entities. Chavez was
the sole manager listed for Escondido Pets. Escondido Pets listed its business as a
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 27 of 79 Page ID #:27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-28- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
“[p]et store offering puppies and kittens for sale.” Escondido Pets repeatedly violated
the Puppy Mill Ban by acquiring hundreds of puppies from one of more Defendants
and then selling them through its pet stores after the Puppy Mill Ban went into effect.
138. Bark Boutique & Rescue, LLC (“Bark Boutique”) was a California
limited liability company incorporated in February 2018 and registered at 40820
Winchester Rd. #2320, Temecula, CA 92591, the same address as Bark Boutique, the
California pet store and sham rescue owned and operated by Chavez and Ramirez
through Bark Boutique and various other shell entities. Ramirez and Chavez are listed
as Bark Boutique’s only managers or members. Bark Boutique’s purpose was listed as
“Pet store & rescue.” Bark Boutique repeatedly violated the Puppy Mill Ban by
acquiring hundreds of puppies from one or more Defendants and then selling them
through its pet stores after the Puppy Mill Ban went into effect.
139. Amilcar Chavez, Jazmin Ramirez, Bark Avenue, Escondido Pets, Bark
Boutique, and any and all pet stores operated by the same are collectively referred to
as “Chavez Pet Stores.”
140. The Chavez Pet Stores had done previous business with J.A.K.’s.
141. The Chavez Pet Stores each acquired puppies from J.A.K.’s through
Defendants Rescue Pets Iowa and Bark Adoptions during 2019. Puppies marketed as
coming from “Bark Adoptions” were being sold as late as December 2019 in at least
one Chavez Pet Store.
142. In December 2019, a California state court enjoined the Chavez Pet
Stores from continuing illegal sales. Soon after, the stores shut down. Had they not
been caught, the Chavez Pet Stores would have continued illegal, fraudulent sales in
violation of the Puppy Mill Ban.
iv. Puppies 4 Less’s Fraudulent Sales.
143. Puppies 4 Less was yet another pet store that took advantage of the
supply chain of puppy-mill animals sourced from J.A.K.’s following the Puppy Mill
Ban.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 28 of 79 Page ID #:28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-29- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
144. Puppies 4 Less was a California corporation, owned and operated by
Anita Chavira, that operated a pet store in Temecula, Riverside County at 31285
Temecula Parkway, Suite 180. Puppies 4 Less and Chavira (collectively, “Puppies 4
Less”) repeatedly violated the Puppy Mill Ban by acquiring from one or more of the
other Defendants hundreds of puppies and then selling them through its pet stores
after the Puppy Mill Ban went into effect.
145. On June 12, 2020, a state court issued a temporary injunction barring
Puppies 4 Less from continuing illegal sales “in violation of Health & Safety Code
Section 122354.5.” Soon after, the store permanently shut down. Had they not been
caught and shut down, Puppies 4 Less would have continued its illegal, fraudulent
sales in violation of the Puppy Mill Ban.
v. The Pet Stores Uniformly Misrepresented the Puppy Mill Dogs as
Rescues
146. Defendant Animal Kingdom along with the Salinas Pet Stores, the
Chavez Pet Stores, and Puppies 4 Less are collectively referred to as the “Pet Stores.”
147. Each of the Pet Stores held out the pure and designer bred puppies they
ordered from J.A.K.’s as “rescues” coming from Defendant Bark Adoptions or
Defendant Pet Connect Rescue.
148. Cage cards displayed in the Pet Stores in 2019 and 2020 show puppies
coming from “Bark Adoptions Rescue, CA,” and “PetConnect Rescue, Joplin, MO” or
“Rescue Org: Pet Connect, Joplin, Missouri,” when in fact they came from puppy
mills via J.A.K.’s.
149. For example, a cage card displayed in one of Defendant Animal
Kingdom’s California pet stores prominently showed a Pembroke Welsh Corgi
acquired from “Bark Adoptions Rescue” with a birthdate of Nov. 27, 2018 for sale for
$1,999.99, and microchip number 991001001881082.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 29 of 79 Page ID #:29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-30- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
150. Certificates of Veterinary Inspection issued January 28, 2019, show
Rescue Pets Iowa sent Bark Adoptions a Pembroke Welsh Corgi, among 88 other
puppies, with the same microchip number, birthdate, and breed. Just like all puppies
supposedly “rescued” by Rescue Pets Iowa, the puppy came from J.A.K.’s. J.A.K.’s
sourced the dog from a puppy mill or private breeder.
151. Similar cage cards displayed in the Pet Stores in 2019 and 2020 show
puppies coming from “Pet Connect Rescue, MO,” when in fact they came to Pet
Connect Rescue from J.A.K.’s via Rescue Pets Iowa.
152. For example, a cage card offering a Siberian Husky puppy for sale in one
of Animal Kingdom’s California pet stores for $1,599.99 listed a microchip number of
991001001874508 and a birthdate of Dec. 8, 2018.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 30 of 79 Page ID #:30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-31- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
153. A Siberian Husky puppy with the microchip number 991001001874508
and a date of birth of Dec. 7, 2018, is marked on a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection
issued February 10, 2019, transferring puppies from Rescue Pets Iowa to Pet Connect
Rescue. The puppy also came from J.A.K.’s.
154. As another example, in May of 2020, cage cards at Salinas’s store Pups
& Pets in Santee, California, offered nine-week old pure-bred puppies acquired from
Pet Connect Rescue:
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 31 of 79 Page ID #:31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-32- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
V. Pet Stores Transmit Money to Bark Adoptions for J.A.K.’s Brokered
Puppies.
155. Bark Adoptions asked the pet stores with whom it did business to sign
“Adoption Agreements.”
156. The Adoption Agreements required the pet stores, including Defendant
Animal Kingdom, to make a $65–70 contribution to Bark Adoptions in exchange for
each puppy they received. The money was supposed to be “immediately used to pay
the ongoing costs of rescuing unwanted, undesired and flawed animals,” despite Bark
Adoptions having received nearly all of its dogs from J.A.K.’s.
157. Because Bark Adoptions kept 99 percent of its rescued puppies for less
than 3 hours before sending them to a pet store and it operated out of Diaz’s garage, it
profited considerably from the fees associated with each sham pet store’s “adoption.”
158. Between December 22, 2018 and March 19, 2019, for example,
Defendant Animal Kingdom entered into so-called “Adoption Agreements” with Bark
Adoptions for the acquisition of 143 puppies. Animal Kingdom paid nearly $10,000 to
Bark Adoptions for the puppies funneled from J.A.K.’s in Iowa into California,
disguised as adoption fees and sterilization deposits.
159. The Salinas Pet Stores executed at least 39 so-called “Adoption
Agreements” between January 8, 2019 and April 2, 2019 with Bark Adoptions for
over 330 puppies that came from J.A.K.’s and Rescue Pets Iowa. Each agreement for
a batch of puppies was signed by General Manager Richard Robles Pena.
160. After April 2, 2019, the Salinas Pet Stores continued to import puppies
from Bark Adoptions and Rescue Pets Iowa almost weekly until at least November
2019.
161. Almost immediately after receiving a delivery of puppies, the Salinas Pet
Stores would use PayPal to send thousands of dollars at a time to Bark Adoptions.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 32 of 79 Page ID #:32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-33- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
162. The Puppy Store LLC, a Wyoming company owned by Salinas, regularly
sent funds to Bark Adoptions’ PayPal account that noted the payments were for
Broadway Puppies, National City Puppy, Hello Puppies, and The Fancy Puppy.
163. On April 29, 2019, for example, the same day Rescue Pets Iowa shipped
66 puppies to Bark Adoptions and a day before the Salinas Pet Stores executed
adoption agreements regarding the same dogs with Bark Adoptions, The Puppy Store
LLC made four PayPal payments to Bark Adoptions totaling $6,680, with a note of
“National City Puppy, Hello Puppies, Broadway Puppies, and The Fancy Puppy.”
164. In total, from December 21, 2018 until July 9, 2019, The Puppy Store
sent at least 41 payments to Bark Adoptions’ PayPal account. The payments ranged
from $100 to $6,000 per payment. The 41 payments included four payments in a two-
day span, on behalf of National City Puppy, Broadway Puppies, Hello Puppies, and
The Fancy Puppy, that totaled more than $20,000.
165. Pups & Pets, a California pet store also owned by Salinas, similarly sent
funds to Bark Adoptions’ PayPal account.
166. Together, the Salinas Pet Stores paid over $90,000 to Bark Adoptions for
the puppies funneled from J.A.K.’s in Iowa into California from December 2018 until
July 9, 2019, disguised as adoption fees and sterilization deposits and sent to Bark
Adoptions’ PayPal account.
167. The Chavez Pet Stores, in turn, paid over $7,500 to Bark Adoptions for
the puppies funneled from J.A.K.’s in Iowa into California, also disguised as adoption
fees and sterilization deposits.
168. The Chavez Pet Stores executed at least 39 so-called adoption
agreements between January 8, 2019 and April 4, 2019 with Bark Adoptions for over
100 puppies that came from J.A.K.’s and Rescue Pets Iowa. Each agreement for a
batch of puppies was signed by the same manager, Jasmin Ramirez, often on the same
day.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 33 of 79 Page ID #:33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-34- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
169. After April 4, 2019, several of the Chavez Pet Stores continued to import
puppies from Bark Adoptions and Rescue Pets Iowa until December 2019 and likely
for the same or similar fees it had previously paid Bark Adoptions.
170. On information and belief, Puppies 4 Less executed adoption agreements
with Bark Adoptions for at least six deliveries of puppies from J.A.K.’s and Rescue
Pets Iowa.
VI. California Pet Stores Disguise Payments to J.A.K.’s for Commercially
Bred Puppies by Routing Money Through Subject Enterprise.
171. Before the Puppy Mill Ban, J.A.K.’s accepted payment from California
pet stores through PayPal, credit card, cash, or checks made out to J.A.K.’s Puppies.
However, in December 2018, with the Puppy Mill Ban looming, J.A.K.’s devised a
new payment system which its associates willingly agreed to and carried out.
Specifically, to disguise the payments J.A.K.’s continued to receive from pet stores
and to conceal J.A.K.’s involvement in the puppy laundering scheme, the pet stores
disguised their payments to J.A.K.’s as exorbitant “transport costs” paid to Subject
Enterprise.
172. The purported “transport costs” were exorbitant. Before the Puppy Mill
Ban, pet stores paid $30–65 for Subject Enterprise’s transport of each puppy. After,
pet stores paid approximately $900 for the same “transport” of each puppy.
173. Subject Enterprise deposited these payments in its account, only to turn
around and pay all but a small cut of those funds to J.A.K.’s.
174. The new system was made possible by Defendant TBHF LLC, which
created sham invoices purporting to document “transport costs,” despite knowing that
substantially all of the amounts were not for transportation. This was done upon
J.A.K.’s request.
175. In December 2018, J.A.K.’s asked Subject Enterprise to vet the pet
stores’ payments to ensure each check handed to Subject Enterprise employees upon
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 34 of 79 Page ID #:34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-35- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
delivering J.A.K.’s puppies to their pet store were “PAYABLE TO SUBJECT
ENTERPRISE!!!”
176. A partial collection of records from December 2018 to March 2019
demonstrates that Subject Enterprise deposited hundreds of thousands of dollars in
supposed “transport costs” from several pet stores, including Defendant Animal
Kingdom, in that four month period alone.
DATE FROM AMOUNT DEPOSITED 12/13/2018 Puppies 4 Less $3,465.00 12/19/2018 Bark Boutique $8,000.00 12/19/2018 Puppies 4 Less $4,510.00 12/19/2018 Puppies 4 Less $1,895.00 12/19/2018 Bark Boutique $3,680.00 12/19/2018 Escondido Pets $14,350.00 12/26/2018 Puppies 4 Less $5,715.00 12/26/2018 Animal Kingdom $10,375.00
1/11/2019 Puppies 4 Less $8,610.00 1/11/2019 Bark Boutique $560.00 1/11/2019 Escondido Pets $350.00 1/11/2019 Animal Kingdom $16,015.00
1/11/2019 Animal Kingdom $1,750.00
1/17/2019 Animal Kingdom $21,735.00
1/17/2019 Puppies 4 Less $4,485.00 1/17/2019 Bark Boutique $8,755.00 1/17/2019 Escondido Pets $2,350.00 1/25/2019 Puppies 4 Less $2,795.00 1/25/2019 Bark Boutique $2,545.00 1/25/2019 Bark Adoptions $250.00
1/31/2019 Puppies 4 Less $3,960.00 1/31/2019 Animal Kingdom $10,715.00
1/31/2019 Bark Boutique $3,085.00 2/16/2019 Puppies 4 Less $600.00 2/16/2019 Puppies 4 Less $2,665.00 2/16/2019 Animal Kingdom $17,955.00
2/25/2019 Puppies 4 Less $5,945.00 2/25/2019 Animal Kingdom $10,520.00
3/3/2019 Animal Kingdom $12,365.00
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 35 of 79 Page ID #:35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-36- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
3/11/2019 Puppies 4 Less $4,865.00 3/18/2019 Animal Kingdom $12,635.00
3/18/2019 Puppies 4 Less $4,800.00 3/18/2019 Bark Ave $7,585.00 3/18/2019 Bark Ave $3,325.00 3/18/2019 Bark Ave $4,465.00 3/21/2019 Puppies 4 Less $3,665.00
3/21/2019 Animal Kingdom $17,950.00
177. Defendant Animal Kingdom paid $132,015.00 for the “transport” of
approximately 143 puppies delivered by Defendant Subject Enterprise from
Defendants J.A.K.’s and Rescue Pets Iowa during the first three months of 2019. This
is in addition to the nearly $10,000 that Defendant Animal Kingdom had paid to
Defendant Bark Adoptions pursuant to those puppies’ “Adoption Agreements.”
178. The pet stores’ payments ultimately went to J.A.K.’s. The pet stores
would hand the check to Subject Enterprise at the time of each puppy delivery, and
Subject Enterprise would then deposit the checks in its bank account, after which it
would transfer the funds to J.A.K.’s.
179. On January 17, 2019 and January 25, 2019, for example, Subject
Enterprise deposited checks that it received from Defendant Animal Kingdom as well
as from pet stores Puppies 4 Less, Bark Boutique, and Escondido Pets for the delivery
of puppies. The checks totaled $42,915. On January 28, 2019, Subject Enterprise
transferred $40,830 to J.A.K.’s.
180. Similarly, on March 18, 2019 and March 21, 2019, for example, Subject
Enterprise deposited checks that it received from Defendant Animal Kingdom as well
as from Puppies 4 Less, and Bark Avenue Puppies for the delivery of puppies. The
checks totaled $54,425. A few days later, on March 26, 2019, Subject Enterprise
transferred $50,065 to J.A.K.’s.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 36 of 79 Page ID #:36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-37- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
181. Defendants similarly used Pet Connect Rescue as a conduit to funnel
money from the pet stores to the other defendants. For example, Pet Connect Rescue
would collect enormous transport fees of approximately $800 per puppy from the pet
stores and, upon information and belief, remit the majority of the money to other
Defendants including J.A.K.’s.
VII. Defendants Sell Puppy Mill Dogs to Consumers for Thousands of
Dollars under the False Pretense that the Dogs Are “Rescues.”
182. Each Defendant as well as the Pet Stores had arrangements to acquire and
transfer puppy mill puppies disguised as “rescue” animals for retail sale in California,
including at Defendant Animal Kingdom’s stores.
183. All Defendants and the Pet Stores falsified the source of the animals
supplied to and sold in California pet stores. Each similarly misrepresented the non-
profit status and nature of the businesses of Defendants Bark Adoptions, Rescue Pets
Iowa, and Pet Connect Rescue as animal rescue groups. The Defendants together
trafficked in the unlawful and unfair scheme of offering animals for sale in California
for profit.
184. Every customer was exposed to these misrepresentations.
185. Under the Puppy Mill Ban, each pet store was required to post a sign “in
a conspicuous location on the cage or enclosure of each animal” listing the name of
the supposed public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of
cruelty to animals shelter, or nonprofit rescue from which each animal was obtained.
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122354.5(c) (2019). The cage cards exposed every
customer to the misrepresentation that the puppies they were about to buy had been
obtained legally from a bona fide rescue group.
186. For instance, the Chavez and Ramirez operated store Temecula Puppies
posted signs displaying pure bred and designer puppies for sale in February 2019 and
sourced from “Bark Adoptions Menifee.” The cage card shown here, like other cage
cards in Chavez’s stores in 2019, did not explain that Defendant Bark Adoptions
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 37 of 79 Page ID #:37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-38- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
likely obtained this beagle on or around January 28, 2019, from Rescue Pets Iowa and
J.A.K.’s. An image of the cage card is below.
187. The Salinas Pet Stores each displayed similar signs, such as one from
February 20, 2019, posted in Broadway Puppies. The card lists a Puggle born
December 13, 2018 for sale with his source listed as “Pet Connect Rescue Joplin
MO.” The cage card did not share with consumers that Pet Connect Rescue likely
obtained the pug on or around February 17, 2019, from Rescue Pets Iowa and
J.A.K.’s. An image of the cage card is below.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 38 of 79 Page ID #:38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-39- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
188. Defendant Animal Kingdom similarly posted deceptive signs to sell its
puppies in each of its stores in 2019, such as a cage card prominently showing the
Pembroke Welsh Corgi acquired from Bark Adoptions Rescue. An image of the cage
card is below.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 39 of 79 Page ID #:39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-40- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
189. In 2019, Puppies 4 Less similarly sold puppies labeled as coming from
Defendants Bark Adoptions and Pet Connect Rescue.
190. Every customer was also exposed to the “rescue” misrepresentation at the
time of sale. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122140(b)(1) (2019) required every pet
store to provide customers with a written statement containing the source of the dog.
A sample disclosure, showing the source of a puppy sold from Animal Kingdom on
March 5, 2019, states the puppy was obtained from “Pet Connect Rescue” and not
from a “Breeder” or “Dealer.” An excerpt of the pet dealer disclosure, which is similar
to all other Pet Stores’ disclosures, is below.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 40 of 79 Page ID #:40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-41- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
191. The Pet Stores, including Defendant Animal Kingdom, held out their
puppy-mill puppies as rescues, assuring potential consumers they were not obtained
from breeders or brokers for compensation.
192. In addition to the repeated display on cage cards and in dealer disclosures
of the “rescues” each puppy was purportedly obtained from, Pet Store employees
explicitly misrepresented the provenance of the animals being sold.
193. On February 9, 2019, for example, the manager of Defendant Animal
Kingdom’s San Luis Obispo location told an undercover investigator that the store
had a purebred, ten-week old Corgi for sale for $2,199 but could not provide
registration papers attesting to its pedigree because it was from a “rescue.”
194. Defendant Animal Kingdom’s Facebook Page stated that all of its
puppies were “2019 compliant” because they all “come through rescue groups.”
195. After 2019, the Salinas Pet Stores advertised their puppies as rescues
whose sale was compliant with the Puppy Mill Ban. The Fancy Puppy specifically
advertised that they were selling “Rescue” puppies. Broadway Puppies advertised on
their website that they “make sure our puppies come from rescue partners only, not
puppy mills.” In the store, signs adorning the puppies’ cages identified them as from
Bark Adoptions or Pet Connect Rescue.
196. The Pet Stores also falsely told customers that some of the dogs were
sourced from local shelters. For example, Broadway Puppies would tell a customer
that a puppy came from a local shelter, when in reality the dog came from J.A.K.’s.
197. As shown in Certificates of Veterinary Inspection signed by Defendant
Noethe and large payments from the Pet Stores, including Defendant Animal
Kingdom, that were being funneled back to J.A.K.’s through Subject Enterprise as
transportation costs, the Pet Stores knew J.A.K.’s ordered the puppies from
commercial private breeders and puppy mills for weekly distribution into California
pet stores. Yet each misrepresented the puppies to consumers as “rescues” needing
rehoming.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 41 of 79 Page ID #:41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-42- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
198. The Sham Rescues coordinated and acted in concert with J.A.K.’s and
the other Defendants, as well as the Pet Stores, to launder puppy mill dogs for
compensation and personal gain, under the false pretense that Defendants Bark
Adoptions, Rescue Pets Iowa, and Pet Connect Rescue were animal rescue groups.
Bark Adoptions advertised itself through social media as a nonprofit and local rescue
working with shelters, rescues, and adoptive partners.
199. Bark Adoptions’ website, maintained by Vaughn, stated:
Bark Adoptions started to rescue pet animals from situations where the pet animals are unwanted, undesired or flawed and placed rescue pet animals via our rescue partners into secure homes through adoptions or foster care. Our mission is to work with rescues, shelters, humane society’s [sic], and
animal care facilities to help home unwanted, undesired, abandoned and
surrendered strays and pet animals into loving homes via rescue partners,
fostering, pet stores, and adoptions. We strive to help pet owners who can’t
afford sterilization, and to provide underfunded shelters with donations so
that they can continue to care for, feed, clean, and house animals.
200. Defendants perpetrated this scheme for financial gain.
201. The Pet Stores, including Defendant Animal Kingdom, regularly sold the
puppies obtained from J.A.K.’s for $2,000 and more. The proceeds from these sales
were distributed throughout Defendants’ puppy laundering network among Bark
Adoptions and Pet Connect Rescue, Subject Enterprise, TBHF LLC and J.A.K.’s and
its puppy mill sources. This is far more than the $180 or less for stray and abandoned
dogs that animal rescue organizations typically charge as an adoption fee for true
rescues. See, e.g., Adoption Rates, Central California SPCA
https://www.ccspca.com/support-the-ccspca/adopt/adoption-rates/ (last visited
December 15, 2021) (example adoption rate).
202. Defendants hide the distribution of their profits from the laundering by
referring to them as “donations” or “fees” associated with adoptions, or transport costs
for delivery of the animals from J.A.K.’s to the Pet Stores.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 42 of 79 Page ID #:42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-43- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
VIII. Plaintiffs Were Deceived into Buying Commercially Bred Puppies.
203. Defendants’ laundering scheme did not only harm the puppies bred in
unsanitary and unsafe conditions and bargained for across state lines. California
consumers also suffered.
204. As the Iowa Attorney General determined, Defendants’ puppy laundering
“deceptively preempts consumers’ concerns about buying dogs bred within puppy
mills,” and therefore “inherently entails uninformed purchases by consumers, and
unavoidable injuries stemming from lying to consumers – overly and by deliberate
omission – about the source of [the] pupp[ies].” Iowa AG Petition at 4.
205. Rebecca Carey is a California resident who visited Defendant Animal
Kingdom’s Grover Beach location on January 15, 2019, where she purchased Sonnie,
a “Cockapoo” (Cocker Spaniel / poodle blend) for approximately $1,800.00.
206. Carey believed that Sonnie was a rescue. The card on Sonnie’s cage
(shown below) stated that she had been acquired through “Bark Adoption Rescue” and
the purchase documents indicated the puppy’s source was “Bark Adoption Rescue.”
Animal Kingdom staff also told Carey that Sonnie came from a rescue.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 43 of 79 Page ID #:43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-44- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
207. Carey purchased Sonnie because she believed she was a rescue. Carey
would not have purchased Sonnie if she knew she was sold in violation of California
law. Carey would not have knowingly supported Defendants’ black market puppy
trade.
208. The paperwork attached to Sonnie’s display cage said that Sonnie was
born on October 28, 2018, making her approximately 11 weeks old at the time of
purchase. It also showed Sonnie’s microchip number as 991001001879952.
209. Certificates of Veterinary Inspection show the same microchip number
listed for a female cocker spaniel/poodle blend dog that was transferred from Rescue
Pets Iowa to Bark Adoptions on January 7, 2019.
210. Bark Adoptions transferred Sonnie to Animal Kingdom.
211. Plaintiff Cody Latzer is a California resident who searched for a dog to
adopt during the “National Adoption Week” held during February 2019. In his search,
Latzer viewed a female Australian cattle dog at one of two Animal Kingdom locations
he visited.
212. At Animal Kingdom, Latzer observed approximately ten to twelve dogs
displayed in glass cages, with prices ranging from $1,200-1,700.
213. Latzer did not adopt any animals during his initial visits to Animal
Kingdom.
214. Around the same time, Latzer had considered adopting a dog from
Woods Humane Society in San Louis Obispo. After his visit, however, the dog he was
interested in was adopted. So, two weeks after his initial visit, Latzer returned to
Animal Kingdom.
215. On March 5, 2019, Latzer purchased the same female Australian cattle
dog he had previously seen, “Sadie,” from Defendant Animal Kingdom’s San Luis
Obispo location. Including a sterilization deposit and sales tax, the total price came to
$1,763.99.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 44 of 79 Page ID #:44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-45- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
216. Latzer believed that Sadie was a rescue. The card on Sadie’s cage stated
that she had been acquired through “Pet Connect Rescue,” and the purchase
documents similarly listed her source as “Pet Connect Rescue.”
217. Latzer purchased Sadie because he believed she was a rescue. Latzer
would not have purchased Sadie if he knew she was sold in violation of California
law. He would not have knowingly supported Defendants’ black market puppy trade.
218. The paperwork showed Sadie was born on December 10, 2018, making
her less than three months old at the time of purchase. It showed Sadie’s microchip
number as 991001001874569.
219. Certificates of Veterinary Inspection show the same microchip number
listed for a female Australian cattle dog that was transferred from Rescue Pets Iowa to
Pet Connect Rescue on February 10, 2019.
220. Defendant Pet Connect Rescue transferred Sadie to Defendant Animal
Kingdom in California.
221. The cage cards Carey and Latzer observed, and the adoption documents
they received, are typical of the cage cards and adoption documents that Defendant
Animal Kingdom and the other Pet Stores provided to every customer, including the
representation that the puppies were sourced from a rescue.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
222. This action is maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
223. The class definition(s) may depend on the information obtained
throughout discovery. Notwithstanding, at this time, Plaintiffs bring this class action
and seek certification of the claims and certain issues in this action on behalf of a class
of individuals defined as:
All persons who, on or after January 1, 2019, purchased dogs in the State of California supplied by J.A.K.’s. Excluded from the Class are (1) Defendants and their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 45 of 79 Page ID #:45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-46- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
successors; and (2) the judge to whom this case is assigned and the judge’s staff.
224. All members of the class are similarly affected by Defendants’ puppy
laundering and selling scheme.
I. Numerosity.
225. During the class period, more than 1,500 individuals purchased puppies
in California sourced from J.A.K.’s.
226. Consumers in the class are so numerous as to make joinder impracticable,
if not impossible. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by
recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S.
Mail, electronic mail, Internet postings, and/or published notice.
II. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate.
227. There are numerous questions of law and fact that are common to
Plaintiffs and class members that predominate over questions affecting only individual
class members, including:
a. Whether Defendants’ practices for procuring and labeling puppies were
unfair and/or unlawful in any respect;
b. Whether dogs supplied by J.A.K.’s could be legally sold in California
after January 1, 2019 merely by being funneled through sham “rescue”
organizations;
c. Whether Defendants’ conduct caused class members damages;
d. Whether Defendants’ conduct is deserving of punitive and/or treble
damages;
e. Whether Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to injunctive relief.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 46 of 79 Page ID #:46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-47- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
III. Typicality.
228. The claims asserted by Plaintiffs in this action are typical of the claims of
all Class Members, as the claims arise from the same course of conduct by
Defendants, and the relief sought is common among Class Members. Further, there
are no defenses available to Defendants that are unique to Plaintiffs.
IV. Adequacy.
229. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of
the Class. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because their interests do
not conflict with the interests of the Class members they seek to represent, and they
have retained counsel competent and experienced in both consumer protection and
class action litigation and the Puppy Mill Ban. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel will
fairly and adequately protect Class Members’ interests. Undersigned counsel have
represented consumers in a variety of actions where they have sought to protect
consumers from fraudulent and deceptive practices.
V. Predominance and Superiority of Class Action.
230. The prerequisites to maintaining a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b) are
met because questions of law and fact common to each Class Member predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
231. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of the Class Members is
not practicable, and questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over
any questions affecting only individual Class Members. Each Class Member has been
damaged and is entitled to recovery as a result of the violations alleged herein.
232. Moreover, because the damages suffered by individual members of the
Class may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation would
make it difficult or impossible for individual Class Members to redress the wrongs
done to them, while an important public interest will be served by addressing the
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 47 of 79 Page ID #:47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-48- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
matter as a class action. Class action treatment will allow those persons similarly
situated to litigate their claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for
the parties and the judicial system.
233. Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulties in managing this case that
should preclude class action.
VII. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
234. Certification also is appropriate under Rule 23(b) because Defendants
acted, or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making
appropriate the injunctive relief sought on behalf of the Class. Further, given the large
number of purchasers, allowing individual actions to proceed in lieu of a class action
would run the risk of yielding inconsistent and conflicting adjudications.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
1962(c)
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
235. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations of
the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
236. RICO, Section 1962(c) makes it “unlawful for any person employed by
or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect,
interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the
conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
237. Defendants created and/or participated in the affairs of an illegal
enterprise (the “California Puppy Laundering Enterprise”), the direct purpose of
which was to deceive regulators and consumers into believing dogs sourced from
commercial puppy mills were “rescues” and to profit from their importation and
illegal sale in California. Defendants’ acts in furtherance of the California Puppy
Laundering Enterprise violate Section 1962(c).
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 48 of 79 Page ID #:48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-49- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
238. Defendants are all “persons” under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3) because they are
capable of holding, and do hold, “a legal or beneficial interest in property.”
239. Defendants are members of and constitute an “association-in-fact”
enterprise.
240. At all relevant times, the California Puppy Laundering Enterprise: (a) had
an existence separate and distinct from each Defendant; (b) was separate and distinct
from the pattern of racketeering in which Defendants engaged; and (c) was an ongoing
organization consisting of legal entities and individuals, including J.A.K.’s, Subject
Enterprise, and Rescue Pets Iowa, and other entities and individuals associated for the
common purpose of brokering, distributing, and selling puppy mill dogs in California
through sham rescues, deceptive transport routes, transfer documents, invoices, and
payment arrangements, and misleading marketing and labeling, and deriving revenue
and profits from those activities. Each Defendant shared in the benefits derived from
revenue generated by the scheme to defraud California consumers.
241. The California Puppy Laundering Enterprise engaged in and its activities
affected interstate commerce because it involved commercial activities across state
boundaries, such as brokering and transporting dogs from the Midwest to California
and the receipt of monies for sale of those dogs.
242. Defendants participated in the operation and management of the
California Puppy Laundering Enterprise by directing its affairs, as described herein.
While the Defendants participated in, and are members of, the enterprise, they have a
separate existence from the enterprise, including distinct legal statuses, different
offices and roles, bank accounts, officers, directors, employees, individual
personhood, reporting requirements, and financial statements.
243. To carry out their scheme to defraud, Defendants conducted or
participated in the conduct of the affairs of the California Puppy Laundering
Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity that: (a) used mail and wire
facilities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 (mail fraud) and 1343 (wire fraud); (b)
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 49 of 79 Page ID #:49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-50- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
laundered money in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) (promotional money
laundering) and 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (money laundering by concealment); (c) transacted
in criminally derived property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957; and (d) repeatedly
violated the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a)(1) or 1952(a)(3) (collectively referred
to as “Predicate Acts” and described in more detail above and in paragraphs 244
through 281).
i. Mail and Wire Fraud
244. The electronic mail communications, wire transfers, PayPal payments,
and telephone calls set forth in Paragraphs 61 through 120, Paragraphs 155 through
181, and Paragraphs 246 through 249 were transmitted by Defendants, and/or were
caused to be transmitted or reasonably foreseen to be caused by Defendants, by means
of wire and/or radio communications in interstate commerce.
245. The deliveries of puppies and monetary instruments to and from Iowa
and California set forth in Paragraphs 61 through 120 and Paragraphs 146 through 181
by Subject Enterprise, a private or commercial interstate carrier, was similarly caused
by and/or reasonably foreseeable to every Defendant.
246. As set forth in Paragraphs 61 through 221, each Defendant participated in
a scheme that relied on the above-described uses of interstate mails and wires. One of
the first steps in that scheme, for example, was for the J.A.K.’s Defendants to notify
the Rescue Pets Iowa Defendants, by electronic mail communication, of how many
puppies were available to be laundered as fake rescues and sold to California
consumers. The Rescue Pets Iowa Defendants, in turn, would send interstate
electronic mail communications to Bark Adoptions at J.A.K.’s’ behest to
communicate how many puppies J.A.K.’s had selected to send there. Sometimes, the
Rescue Pets Iowa Defendants would channel their communication with the Bark
Adoptions Defendants through the Pet Connect Rescue Defendants, with whom they
also communicated by interstate electronic mail communications and telephone calls.
Once the Bark Adoptions Defendants knew how many puppies were available for
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 50 of 79 Page ID #:50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-51- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
sale, they would send electronic mail communications to the Pet Stores to determine
how many puppies they could take. The Bark Adoptions Defendants would then relay
that information to the Rescue Pets Iowa Defendants (and, therefore, J.A.K.’s) through
interstate electronic mail communications.
247. After confirming the number of puppies that they would launder into
California as fake rescues, each Defendant communicated with the Subject Enterprise
Defendants to coordinate the interstate transport of puppies. Upon information and
belief, every Defendant communicated, and/or caused or reasonably could foresee
communications, with the Subject Enterprise Defendants through the use of interstate
wire facilities, including telephone calls and electronic mail communications.
248. For example, a partial collection of records from January 2019 to
September 2019 demonstrates that Defendants coordinated the transfer of puppies
from Iowa to California through the following electronic mail communications:
DATE FROM TO DESCRIPTION 1/6/2019 7:34pm jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 98 puppies.
1/6/2019 7:37pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org info@barkadoptions.org Email requesting placement of 98 puppies on behalf of JAKs. 1/6/2019 8:15pm info@barkadoptions.org info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 98 puppies. 1/6/2019 9:16pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 98 puppies.
1/6/2019 9:17pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 98 puppies to California.
1/13/2019 9:31pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 115 puppies.
1/13/2019 9:32pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org info@barkadoptions.org Email requesting placement of 115 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
1/13/2019 9:53pm
info@barkadoptions.org info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for 95-100 puppies.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 51 of 79 Page ID #:51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-52- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
1/13/2019 9:55pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.org
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for 95-100 puppies.
1/13/2019 10:01pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 95-100 puppies to California.
1/20/2019 7:45pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 60 puppies.
1/20/2019 7:48pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org
info@barkadoptions.org Email requesting placement of 60 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
1/20/2019 8:25pm
info@barkadoptions.org info@rescuepetsiowa.org
Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 60 puppies.
1/20/2019 8:26pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 60 puppies.
1/20/2019 8:26pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 60 puppies to California.
1/27/2019 6:59pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 90 puppies.
1/27/2019 7:02pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org info@barkadoptions.org Email requesting placement of 90 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
1/27/2019 7:22pm
info@barkadoptions.org info@rescuepetsiowa.org
Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 90 puppies.
1/27/2019 7:23pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 90 puppies.
1/27/2019 7:30pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 90 puppies to California.
2/10/2019 7:25pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.org info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of a certain number of puppies.
2/10/2019 7:28pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org
info@barkadoptions.org Email requesting placement of a certain number of puppies on behalf of JAKs. 2/10/2019 8:06pm
info@barkadoptions.org
info@rescuepetsiowa.org
Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for 40 puppies. 2/10/2019 8:09pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for 40 puppies.
2/10/2019 8:09pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 35-40 puppies to California.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 52 of 79 Page ID #:52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-53- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
3/10/2019 5:45pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 51 puppies.
3/10/2019 6:00pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org info@barkadoptions.org Email requesting placement of 51 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
3/10/2019 6:53pm
info@barkadoptions.org info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for 43 puppies. 3/10/2019 6:58pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for 43 puppies.
3/10/2019 6:58pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 43 puppies to California.
3/16/2019 6:46pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 108 puppies.
3/16/2019 6:53pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org info@barkadoptions.org Email requesting placement of 108 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
3/16/2019 8:07pm
info@barkadoptions.org info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for 100 puppies. 3/16/2019 8:09pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for 100 puppies.
3/16/2019 8:09pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 100 puppies to California.
3/24/2019 7:42pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 40 puppies.
3/24/2019 7:55pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org info@barkadoptions.org Email requesting placement of 40 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
3/24/2019 8:32pm
info@barkadoptions.org info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 40 puppies. 3/24/2019 8:39pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 40 puppies.
3/24/2019 8:43pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 28 puppies to California.
3/31/2019 4:29pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 64 puppies.
3/31/2019 4:50pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org info@barkadoptions.org Email requesting placement of 64 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 53 of 79 Page ID #:53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-54- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
3/31/2019 7:19pm
info@barkadoptions.org info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 64 puppies. 3/31/2019 7:24pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 64 puppies.
3/31/2019 7:26pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 60 puppies to California.
4/7/2019 2:57pm jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 40 puppies.
4/7/2019 3:24pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org info@barkadoptions.org Email requesting placement of 40 puppies on behalf of JAKs. 4/7/2019 8:27pm info@barkadoptions.org info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 40 puppies. 4/7/2019 8:37pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 40 puppies.
4/7/2019 8:37pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 40 puppies to California.
4/14/2019 2:33pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 70 puppies.
4/14/2019 2:47pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org info@barkadoptions.org Email requesting placement of 70 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
4/14/2019 5:19pm
info@barkadoptions.org info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 70 puppies. 4/14/2019 5:37pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 70 puppies.
4/14/2019 5:47pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 62 puppies to California.
4/21/2019 7:46pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 60 puppies.
4/21/2019 7:50pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org info@barkadoptions.org Email requesting placement of 60 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
4/21/2019 8:57pm
info@barkadoptions.org info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 60 puppies. 4/21/2019 9:12pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 60 puppies.
4/21/2019 9:13pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 60 puppies to California.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 54 of 79 Page ID #:54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-55- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
4/28/2019 6:55pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of a certain number of puppies.
4/28/2019 7:05pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org info@barkadoptions.org Email requesting placement of a certain number of puppies on behalf of JAKs. 4/28/2019 8:50pm
info@barkadoptions.org info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for 66 puppies. 4/28/2019 8:54pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for 66 puppies.
4/28/2019 9:02pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 66 puppies to California.
5/5/2019 6:14pm jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 50 puppies.
5/5/2019 6:22pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
Email requesting placement of 50 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
5/5/2019 7:56pm barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org
Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 50 puppies.
5/5/2019 7:58pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKS that there is a place for all 50 puppies.
5/5/2019 8:00pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 40 puppies to California.
5/12/2019 9:04pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 50 puppies.
5/12/2019 9:10pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
Email requesting placement of 45 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
5/12/2019 9:15pm
barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 45 puppies. 5/12/2019 9:31pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all puppies.
5/12/2019 9:35pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 42 puppies to California.
5/19/2019 8:27pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 75 puppies.
5/19/2019 8:31pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
Email requesting placement of 75 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
5/19/201 barkadoptionsr info@rescuep Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 55 of 79 Page ID #:55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-56- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
9 8:56pm escue@gmail.com etsiowa.org that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 75 puppies. 5/19/2019 9:07pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 75 puppies.
5/19/2019 9:07pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 75 puppies to California.
6/2/2019 6:45pm jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 85 puppies.
6/2/2019 7:02pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
Email requesting placement of 85 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
6/2/2019 7:23pm barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 85 puppies. 6/2/2019 7:33pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 85 puppies.
6/2/2019 7:53pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 74 puppies to California.
6/9/2019 12:16am jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 82 puppies.
6/9/2019 8:19pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
Email requesting placement of 82 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
Upon information and belief, on June 9, 2019, between the hours of 8:19pm and 11:43pm, Bark Adoptions sent an electronic mail notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that they found a place for 70-80 puppies. Upon information and belief, on June 9, 2019, Rescue Pets Iowa sent an electronic mail to JAKs notifying them that there is a place for 70-80 puppies. 6/9/2019 11:43pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 70-80 puppies to California.
6/23/2019 10:10pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 40-45 puppies.
6/23/2019 10:27pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
Email requesting placement of 40-45 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
6/23/2019 10:28pm
barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 40-45 puppies. 6/23/2019 10:34pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all puppies.
6/23/2019 10:41pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 44 puppies to California.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 56 of 79 Page ID #:56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-57- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
6/30/2019 10:16pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 43 puppies.
6/30/2019 10:22pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
Email requesting placement of 43 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
6/30/2019 10:33pm
barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 43 puppies. 6/30/2019 10:37pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 43 puppies.
6/30/2019 10:37pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 43 puppies to California.
7/7/2019 9:00pm jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 70 puppies.
7/7/2019 9:08pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
Email requesting placement of 70 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
7/7/2019 9:39pm barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org
Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 70 puppies. 7/7/2019 9:44pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 70 puppies.
7/7/2019 9:53pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org
subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 66 puppies to California.
7/14/2019 7:51pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuetpetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 50 puppies.
7/14/2019 8:07pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
Email requesting placement of 50 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
7/14/2019 8:19pm
barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 50 puppies. 7/14/2019 8:25pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 50 puppies.
7/14/2019 8:28pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 49 puppies to California.
7/21/2019 10:00pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 64 puppies.
7/21/2019 10:02pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
Email requesting placement of 55-65 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
7/21/2019 barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.c info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 57 of 79 Page ID #:57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-58- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
10:27pm om place for all 55-65 puppies. 7/21/2019 10:32pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 64 puppies.
7/21/2019 10:43pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 57 puppies to California.
7/28/2019 9:42pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 100 puppies.
7/28/2019 9:47pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
Email requesting placement of 100 puppies on behalf of JAKs.
7/28/2019 9:53pm
barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all 100 puppies. 7/28/2019 11:00pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 100 puppies.
7/28/2019 11:26pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 58 puppies to California.
8/4/2019 7:39pm jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 50-70 puppies.
8/4/2019 8:13pm info@rescuepetsiowa.org barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
Email requesting placement of certain number of puppies on behalf of JAKs. 8/4/2019 8:46pm barkadoptionsrescue@gmail.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that Bark Adoptions had found a place for all the puppies. 8/4/2019 8:59pm info@rescuetpetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.org
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all puppies.
8/4/2019 11:22pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 50 puppies to California.
8/11/2019 7:40pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 120 puppies.
Upon information and belief, on August 11, 2019, between the hours of 7:40pm and 10:30 pm, Rescue Pets Iowa sent an electronic mail to Bark Adoptions requesting placement for 120 puppies on behalf of JAKs. Upon information and belief, on August 11, 2019, between the hours of 7:40pm and 10:30pm, Bark Adoptions sent an electronic mail notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that they found a place for all 120 puppies. 8/11/2019 10:30pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.org
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 120 puppies.
8/11/2019 info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.c Email requesting transport of 65-75 puppies to California.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 58 of 79 Page ID #:58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-59- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
10:36pm om 8/18/2019 10:31pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 55 puppies.
Upon information and belief, on August 18, 2019, between the hours of 10:31pm and 10:53 pm, Rescue Pets Iowa sent an electronic mail to Bark Adoptions requesting placement for 55 puppies on behalf of JAKs. Upon information and belief, on August 18, 2019, between the hours of 10:31pm and 10:53pm, Bark Adoptions sent an electronic mail notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that they found a place for all 55 puppies. 8/18/2019 10:53pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for all 55 puppies.
8/18/2019 10:55pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 54 puppies to California.
8/25/2019 9:39pm
jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 70-90 puppies.
Upon information and belief, on August 25, 2019, between the hours of 9:39pm and 10:32 pm, Rescue Pets Iowa sent an electronic mail to Bark Adoptions requesting placement for 70-90 puppies on behalf of JAKs. Upon information and belief, on August 25, 2019, between the hours of 9:39pm and 10:32pm, Bark Adoptions sent an electronic mail notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that they found a place for all 70-90 puppies. 8/25/2019 10:32pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
Email notifying JAKs that there is a place for 70-90 puppies.
8/25/2019 10:34pm
info@rescuepetsiowa.org subjectenterprise@gmail.com
Email requesting transport of 74 puppies to California.
9/1/2019 6:49pm jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 20 puppies.
Upon information and belief, on September 1, 2019, Rescue Pets Iowa sent an electronic mail to Bark Adoptions requesting placement for 20 puppies on behalf of JAKs. Upon information and belief, on September 1, 2019, Bark Adoptions sent an electronic mail notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that they found a place for all 20 puppies. Upon information and belief, on September 1, 2019, Rescue Pets Iowa sent an electronic mail to JAKs notifying them that there is a place for all 20 puppies. Upon information and belief, on September 1, 2019, Rescue Pets Iowa sent an electronic mail to Subject Enterprise requesting transport of 20 puppies to California.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 59 of 79 Page ID #:59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-60- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
9/7/2019 10:35pm jakspuppies@jakspuppies.com
info@rescuepetsiowa.org Email requesting placement of 65 puppies.
Upon information and belief, on September 7, 2019, Rescue Pets Iowa sent an electronic mail to Bark Adoptions requesting placement for 65 puppies on behalf of JAKs. Upon information and belief, on September 7, 2019, Bark Adoptions sent an electronic mail notifying Rescue Pets Iowa that they found a place for all 65 puppies. Upon information and belief, on September 7, 2019, Rescue Pets Iowa sent an electronic mail to JAKs notifying them that there is a place for all 65 puppies. Upon information and belief, on September 7, 2019, Rescue Pets Iowa sent an electronic mail to Subject Enterprise requesting transport of 65 puppies to California.
249. After Subject Enterprise transported the puppies to the Pet Stores, the Pet
Stores paid, and/or caused to be paid, the other Defendants by means of interstate
mails and wires. For example, a partial collection of records from December 2018 to
July 2019 demonstrates how David Salinas used his Wyoming-based corporation, The
Puppy Store LLC, to transmit PayPal payments to Bark Adoptions in California.
DATE AMOUNT FROM TO NOTE ACCOMPANYING PAYMENT 12/21/2018 $700.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Donation
12/21/2018 $701.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Donation
12/21/2018 $699.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Donation
12/21/2018 $675.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions
12/31/2018 $200.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Donation National City Puppy December 2018 12/31/2018 $50.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Donation The Fancy Puppy December 2018 12/31/2018 $250.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Donation National City Puppy December 2018 12/31/2018 $115.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Donation Hello Puppies December 2018 12/31/2018 $120.00 The Puppy Bark
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 60 of 79 Page ID #:60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-61- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
Store Adoptions 1/14/2019 $870.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Bark Adoptions
1/14/2019 $870.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Bark Adoptions
1/14/2019 $870.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Bark Adoptions
1/14/2019 $870.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Bark Adoptions
1/30/2019 $1,500.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions The Fancy Puppy Dec 17 + Jan 22 1/30/2019 $1,369.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions National City Puppy Dec 17 + Jan 22 1/30/2019 $1,086.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Hello Puppies Dec 17 + Jan 22 1/30/2019 $1,086.32 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Broadway Puppies Dec 17 + Jan 22 2/5/2019 $2,750.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Fancy Puppy
2/5/2019 $1,999.12 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Broadway Puppies
2/20/2019 $3,150.44 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions National City Puppy
2/20/2019 $2,245.44 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Hello Puppies
3/25/2019 $2,100.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions The Fancy Puppy
3/25/2019 $1,780.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions National City Puppy
3/25/2019 $1,465.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Broadway
3/25/2019 $1,260.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Hello Puppies
4/29/2019 $1,705.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions National City Puppy
4/29/2019 $1,915.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions The Fancy Puppy
4/29/2019 $1,705.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Broadway Puppies
4/29/2019 $1,355.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Hello Puppies
5/8/2019 $2,670.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions National City Puppy
5/8/2019 $1,970.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Fancy Puppy Donation 5/8/2019 $1,680.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Broadway Donation
5/8/2019 $1,360.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Hello Puppies
5/23/2019 $1,680.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Broadway Puppies
5/23/2019 $3,280.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions National City Puppy
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 61 of 79 Page ID #:61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-62- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
5/23/2019 $3,000.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Fancy Puppy
5/23/2019 $2,280.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Hello Puppies
7/7/2019 $5,840.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Fancy Invoices
7/7/2019 $4,320.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions HP Invoices
7/9/2019 $6,280.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions National City
7/9/2019 $4,470.00 The Puppy Store Bark Adoptions Broadway Puppies
250. The interstate mail and wire transmissions described herein were all
made in furtherance and execution of Defendants’ scheme to defraud and a common
course of conduct to deceive regulators and consumers and lure consumers into
purchasing puppies, which Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded were sourced
from puppy mills and sold in violation of the Puppy Mill Ban, despite Defendants
holding the puppies out as “rescues.”
251. Defendants’ activities constituted a scheme or artifice to defraud or for
obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, promises, or omissions within the meanings of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and
18 U.S.C. § 1343, in which Defendants each conducted or participated knowingly and
with the intent to defraud. To achieve their common goals, Defendants hid from
regulators, consumers, and the public the true provenance of the dogs they brokered,
distributed, and unlawfully sold in California.
252. Each Defendant benefited from the fraud: they all received compensation
and professional success.
253. Defendants knew and intended that government regulators, as well as
Plaintiffs and Class members, would rely on the material misrepresentations and
omissions made by them about the source of the laundered puppies. Defendants
further knew and intended that Plaintiffs and Class members would incur costs and
damages as a result.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 62 of 79 Page ID #:62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-63- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
254. Plaintiffs and Class members did rely on Defendants’ misrepresentations
and omissions about the provenance of the puppy mill dogs as shown by, inter alia,
the fact that Plaintiffs and Class members purchased dogs that should never have been
introduced into the stream of commerce in California and whose fair market value was
far less than what was paid.
255. Each of the interstate mail and wire transmissions described herein is
individually indictable as an act of mail and/or wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and
18 U.S.C. § 1343. As such, each constitutes a separate predicate act of “racketeering
activity” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).
ii. Money Laundering: Promotional Money Laundering
256. By their foregoing conduct set forth in Paragraphs 61 through 221 each
Defendant, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represented
the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducted or attempted to conduct
such a financial transaction which in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful
activity (to wit, mail fraud and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18
U.S.C. § 1343, as set forth in Paragraphs 244 through 255; and in violation of the
Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a)(1) and (3), as set forth in Paragraphs 271 through
273, with the intent to promote the carrying on of such specified unlawful activity, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i).
257. Each of the wire transfers between financial institutions, checks, PayPal
payments, and other transfers of money set forth in Paragraphs 61 through 120,
Paragraphs 155 through 181, and Paragraphs 246 through 249 involve the use of
financial institutions that affect interstate or foreign commerce, or otherwise involve
the movement of funds and monetary instruments in a way that affects interstate
commerce, and therefore constitute financial transactions.
258. Each Defendant knew the ongoing payments represented the proceeds of
some unlawful activity—the puppy laundering scheme—and such property was in fact
derived from the proceeds of specified unlawful activity of mail fraud and wire fraud
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 63 of 79 Page ID #:63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-64- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1343, and in violation of the Travel Act, 18
U.S.C. § 1952(a)(1), (3).
259. Each Defendant derived revenue from the puppy laundering scheme,
which was obtained through mail fraud and wire fraud and in violation of the Travel
Act. Each Defendant used such proceeds to continue to make payments for puppies,
their fake adoption costs, their transportation, the laundering of their legal titles, and
various operational costs in order to promote the continuation of the puppy laundering
scheme, all constituting specified unlawful activity (mail fraud and wire fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and violations of the Travel Act,
18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(1), (3)).
260. The making of each of the payments described herein is individually
indictable as an act of promotional money laundering under 18 U.S.C. §
1956(a)(1)(A)(i). As such, each constitutes a separate predicate act of “racketeering
activity” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).
iii. Money Laundering: Money Laundering by Concealment
261. By their foregoing conduct set forth in Paragraphs 61 through 221, each
Defendant, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represented
the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducted or attempted to conduct
such a financial transaction which in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful
activity, to wit, mail fraud and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18
U.S.C. § 1343 (Paragraphs 244 through 255), and violations of the Travel Act, 18
U.S.C. § 1952(a)(1), (3) (Paragraphs 271 through 273), knowing that the transaction
was designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the
source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).
262. Each of the wire transfers between financial institutions, checks, PayPal
payments, and other transfers of money set forth in Paragraphs 61 through 120,
Paragraphs 155 through 181, and Paragraphs 246 through 249 involve the use of
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 64 of 79 Page ID #:64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-65- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
financial institutions that affect interstate or foreign commerce, or otherwise involve
the movement of funds and monetary instruments in a way that affects interstate
commerce, and therefore constitute financial transactions.
263. Each Defendant knew that the ongoing payments represented the
proceeds of some unlawful activity——and such property was in fact derived from the
proceeds of mail fraud and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1343, and
violations of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. §1952(a)(1), (3).
264. Each Defendant derived revenue from the puppy laundering scheme,
which was obtained through mail fraud and wire fraud and in violation of the Travel
Act. Each Defendant concealed such proceeds by depositing such proceeds in
financial institutions and using such proceeds in financial institutions by means of
wire transfers, checks, PayPal payments, and other transfers of money to continue to
make payments for puppies, their fake adoption costs, their transportation, the
laundering of their legal titles, and various operational costs in order to promote the
continuation of the puppy laundering scheme.
265. The concealment of the proceeds of the puppy laundering scheme was
accomplished by structuring the payments in a highly unusual manner to avoid
detection and tracing. For example, the pet stores disguised their payments to J.A.K.’s
for the purchase of puppies as “transport costs” which were paid to Subject Enterprise.
Once Subject Enterprise deposited the fake transport costs into its bank account, it
transmitted the payments by wire transfer between financial institutions to J.A.K.’s.
The pet stores would make additional payments to the Sham Rescue Defendants
disguised as donations, adoption fees, and/or sterilization deposits.
266. The making of each of the payments described herein is individually
indictable as an act of money laundering by concealment under 18 U.S.C. §
1956(a)(1)(B)(i). As such, each constitutes a separate predicate act of “racketeering
activity” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 65 of 79 Page ID #:65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-66- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
iv. Monetary Transactions in Property Derived from Unlawful
Activity
267. Each Defendant, by participating in the puppy laundering scheme and
payments described in Paragraphs 61 through 221 above, knowingly engaged or
attempted to engage in monetary transactions in criminally derived property of a value
greater than $10,000 that was derived from specified unlawful activity, to wit, mail
fraud and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1343; and in violation of the
Travel Act under 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(1), (3), all indictable or chargeable under 18
U.S.C. § 1961(1), and that took place in the United States or in the special maritime
and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.
268. Each Defendant derived revenue from the puppy laundering scheme,
which was obtained through mail fraud and wire fraud and in violation of the Travel
Act.
269. Each Defendant used those proceeds to knowingly engage or attempt to
engage in monetary transactions of a value greater than $10,000. For example, with
the assistance of the other Defendants, the Pet Stores paid for their purchase of
puppies through transactions disguised as “transport costs” that were greater than
$10,000 by means of deposits, withdrawals, transfers, or exchanges, in or affecting
interstate or foreign commerce, of funds or a monetary instrument by, through, or to a
financial institution, to Subject Enterprise, which then transmitted the payments by
wire transfer between financial institutions to J.A.K.’s.
270. Participating in each monetary transaction described herein is thus
individually indictable as an act of engaging in monetary transactions in property
derived from specified unlawful activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1957. As such, each
constitutes a separate predicate act of “racketeering activity” within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. § 1961(1).
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 66 of 79 Page ID #:66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-67- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
v. Travel Act (18 U.S.C. § 1952)
271. By their foregoing conduct set forth in Paragraphs 61 through 221, each
Defendant travelled in interstate commerce, or used the mail or any facility in
interstate or foreign commerce or caused or reasonably could foresee that another
Defendant would do so, with intent to distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity
or otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion,
management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, to wit, any act
which is indictable under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 or 1957.
272. Defendants travelled between Iowa, Missouri, and California, used the
interstate wire facilities of financial institutions in Iowa, Missouri, and California, and
made telephone and electronic mail communications from or to Iowa, Missouri, and
California using facilities of interstate commerce, with the intent to distribute the
proceeds of—and promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate—the money
laundering violations set forth in Paragraphs 256 through 270 above in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957.
273. Each such act is individually indictable as a violation of the Travel Act
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a)(1) or 1952(a)(3). As such, each constitutes a separate
predicate act of “racketeering activity” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).
274. Defendants aided and abetted others in the violations of the above laws,
thereby rendering them indictable as principals in the Predicate Acts.
275. Defendants engaged in the Predicate Acts for the purpose of obtaining
money or property including by means of the omissions, false pretense, and
misrepresentations described in the above subsections.
276. Defendants engaged in a pattern of related and continuous predicate acts
from at least July 2017 through May 2020, if not longer. Such activity consists of
multiple acts of racketeering by each Defendant, is interrelated, not isolated, and is
perpetrated for the same or similar purposes by the same persons. The pattern of
racketeering activity, as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and (5) presents both a
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 67 of 79 Page ID #:67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-68- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
history of criminal conduct and a distinct threat of continuing criminal activity. To the
extent that some Defendants have stopped participating in the pattern of racketeering
activity or changed their methods of doing so, it is only because they have been caught
and faced lawsuits and other enforcement actions. If Defendants had not been caught,
they would have continued their racketeering activities unchanged.
277. The Predicate Acts described herein were made in furtherance of
Defendants’ scheme and common course of conduct to deceive regulators and
consumers and lure consumers into purchasing puppies, which Defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded were sourced from puppy mills and sold in violation of the
Puppy Mill Ban, despite Defendants holding the puppies out as “rescues.”
278. Defendants knew and intended that government regulators, as well as
Plaintiffs and Class members, would rely on the material misrepresentations and
omissions made by them about the puppy mill dogs. Defendants further knew and
intended that Plaintiffs and Class members would incur costs and damages as a result.
279. Plaintiffs and Class members relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations
and omissions about the provenance of the puppy mill dogs as shown by, inter alia,
the fact that Plaintiffs and Class members purchased dogs that never should have been
introduced into the stream of commerce in California and whose fair market value was
far less than was paid.
280. By reason of, and as a result of, the conduct of Defendants, and in
particular their pattern of racketeering activity, Plaintiffs and the Class have been
injured including by overpaying for puppy mill dogs whose price was artificially
inflated by deliberate acts of false statements, omissions and concealment and by
Defendants’ acts of racketeering.
281. Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) have directly and
proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiffs and the Class, and Plaintiffs and
the Class are entitled to bring this action for three times their actual damages, as well
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 68 of 79 Page ID #:68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-69- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
as injunctive/equitable relief, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1964(c).
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
1962(d)
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
282. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations of
the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
283. Beginning before the Puppy Mill Ban went into effect, Defendants and
various other persons, firms, and corporations, including third-party entities and
individuals not named as defendants in this Complaint, did unlawfully, knowingly,
and intentionally conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together to conduct the
affairs of the California Puppy Laundering Enterprise, which was engaged in and
which affected interstate commerce through a pattern of racketeering in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
284. Defendants and each member of the conspiracy, with knowledge and
intent, have agreed to the overall objectives of the conspiracy and participated in the
common course of conduct to commit acts of fraud and indecency in procuring,
brokering, transferring, marketing, and selling puppy mill dogs in California.
285. Each Defendant agreed that at least two acts of racketeering activity
would be committed by a member of the conspiracy to further the California Puppy
Laundering Enterprise.
286. It was part of the conspiracy that Defendants and their co-conspirators
would commit numerous acts of racketeering activity in the conduct of the affairs of
the California Puppy Laundering Enterprise, including the acts of racketeering
described in Paragraphs 243 through 281. These acts constitute a pattern of
racketeering as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and (5).
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 69 of 79 Page ID #:69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-70- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
287. In furtherance of this unlawful conspiracy and to effect its objectives,
Defendants committed numerous overt acts, including those set forth in Paragraphs 61
through 221 of this Complaint.
288. By reason of, and as a result of, Defendants’ conduct, and in particular
their violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured
including by overpaying for puppy mill dogs whose price was artificially inflated by
deliberate acts of false statements, omissions and concealment and by Defendants’
acts of racketeering.
289. Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) have directly and
proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiffs and the Class, and Plaintiffs and
the Class are entitled to bring this action for three times their actual damages, as well
as injunctive/equitable relief, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1964(c).
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Unfair Competition Law,
California Business & Professional Code § 17200 et seq.
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
290. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations of
the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
291. California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Business &
Professional Code § 17200 et seq., proscribes acts of unfair competition, including
“any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive,
untrue or misleading advertising.”
292. By proscribing “unlawful” business practices, the UCL borrows
violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the statute makes
independently actionable.
293. By proscribing “unfair” business practices, the UCL prohibits conduct
that offends established public policy when that conduct is tethered to an underlying
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 70 of 79 Page ID #:70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-71- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision. See Drum v. San Fernando Valley
Bar Ass’n, 182 Cal. App. 4th 247, 257 (2010) (unfair business practices under the
UCL include those that are “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or
substantially injurious to consumers”).
294. By proscribing “fraudulent” business practices, the UCL prohibits
conduct that is likely to deceive or mislead members of the public.
295. The Puppy Mill Ban, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122354.5, constitutes
a public policy to “promote and encourage the availability of shelter animals in
California as a source for either adoption or for sale in a pet store establishment,” see
A.B. 485, Senate Floor Analyses at 3 (Ca, Sept. 9, 2017), and combat the supply of
puppy mill puppies from factory breeders by preventing the sale of puppy mill dogs
through pet shops for financial gain.
296. Defendants’ practices of concealing the provenance of dogs,
misrepresenting the dogs as rescues, selling dogs not “obtained from a public animal
control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter,
humane society shelter, or rescue group that is in a cooperative agreement with at least
one private or public shelter,” in violation of both the text and the policy of the Puppy
Mill Ban, and using the proceeds of such sales to further their illegal puppy laundering
scheme, violate the UCL.
297. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts
about the provenance of the puppy mill dogs with an intent to mislead regulators,
Plaintiffs, and the Class. Absent the misrepresentations and concealment of material
facts enabled by their illegal puppy laundering scheme, Defendants would not have
openly sold the puppy mill dogs in California and would not have been able to collect
the premium prices they did.
298. Plaintiffs and Class Members reasonably relied on Defendants’ false
misrepresentations about the dogs’ provenance and the legitimacy of the sales. If
Plaintiffs and Class Members had known the truth about the dogs’ provenance and the
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 71 of 79 Page ID #:71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-72- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
illegality of their sale, they would not have purchased the dogs or paid the premium
prices they did.
299. If the puppies Defendants laundered and sold to Plaintiffs and Class
Members were in fact “obtained from a public animal control agency or shelter,
society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or
rescue group that is in a cooperative agreement with at least one private or public
shelter,” rather than from for-profit puppy mills and Defendants’ laundering operation,
Plaintiffs and Class Members would have saved a significant amount of money
because legitimate shelters and rescue organizations charge relatively small adoption
fees, if anything at all, and typically cover valuable services such as vaccinations and
sterilizations.
300. Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injury in fact and lost money
because of Defendants’ violations of the UCL, including but not limited to the
purchase price of the dogs and the cost of associated accessories and services.
301. Defendants’ violations have been serious, numerous, persistent, and
willful, and warrant the maximum penalties allowed by law. Defendants’ assets,
liabilities, and net worth likewise warrant the maximum penalties, including an
assessment of punitive damages under Cal. Civil Code § 3294.
302. To the extent Defendants have not already been permanently enjoined by
another court, dissolved, or made an enforceable commitment to cease their illegal
puppy laundering activities in California, Defendants’ violations present an ongoing
harm and risk of harm to Plaintiffs, the Class, and the public interest.
303. Aiding and Abetting. Defendants have independently and collectively
engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of the UCL through the
puppy laundering scheme described in this Complaint. All Defendants have
committed the requisite actions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims. Alternatively, in the
remaining paragraphs for this claim, Plaintiffs allege that the Sham Rescue
Defendants, Defendant J.A.K.’s, Defendant Kirk, Defendant TBHF LLC, Defendant
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 72 of 79 Page ID #:72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-73- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
Coda Subject and Defendant Subject Enterprise are liable for aiding and abetting
Defendant Animal Kingdom’s contravention of the UCL by providing substantial
assistance and encouragement with knowledge of their wrongful conduct.
304. Under the UCL, “[i]t is unlawful for any manufacturer, wholesaler,
distributor, jobber, contractor, broker, retailer, or other vendor, or any agent of any
such person, jointly to participate or collude with any other such person in the
violation of this chapter.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17048.
305. The Sham Rescue Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk, TBHF LLC, Coda
Subject, and Subject Enterprise personally participated in the laundering of dogs from
puppy mills into California in contravention of the Puppy Mill Ban. The Sham Rescue
Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk, TBHF LLC, Coda Subject, and Subject Enterprise are thus
violating the UCL by aiding and abetting the Pet Stores, such as those operated by
Defendant Animal Kingdom, to directly violate the Puppy Mill Ban by acquiring and
offering for sale puppy mill dogs falsely labeled as “rescues” for compensation to
California consumers, including Plaintiffs and the Class.
306. The Sham Rescue Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk, TBHF LLC, Coda Subject,
and Subject Enterprise each exercised unbridled control over unlawful and unfair
practices perpetuating the puppy laundering scheme, including the acquisition,
transportation, and disposition of puppy mill bred dogs into California for sale at pet
stores as “rescues.” These Defendants committed the puppy laundering practices for
compensation and private gain.
307. The Sham Rescue Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk, TBHF LLC, Coda Subject,
and Subject Enterprise’s active participation in the scheme to launder puppies in
violation of the Puppy Mill Ban resulted in the dissemination of the deceptive and
untrue representations regarding the true rescue status of the dogs being sold to
California consumers, including Plaintiffs and the Class.
308. Plaintiffs and Class Members seek restitution and injunctive relief for
Defendants’ UCL violations.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 73 of 79 Page ID #:73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-74- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1770 et
seq.
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
309. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations of
the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
310. Plaintiffs and Class Members are consumers as defined by the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).
311. Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ purchases of the puppy mill puppies from
the Pet Stores are transactions as defined by the CLRA.
312. In violation of several practices declared unlawful by the CLRA, see Cal.
Civil Code § 1770, the Pet Stores, including but not limited to Defendant Animal
Kingdom, falsely represented to consumers that the dogs they sold were from “rescue
organizations” compliant with the Puppy Mill Ban, Cal. Health and Safety Code
§ 122354.5, when, in reality, the dogs were sourced from puppy mills.
313. Aiding and Abetting. The Sham Rescue Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk,
TBHF LLC, Coda Subject, and Subject Enterprise participated in the laundering of
puppy mill sourced puppies into California in contravention of the Puppy Mill Ban.
As such, the Sham Rescue Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk, TBHF LLC, Coda Subject, and
Subject Enterprise have aided and abetted the Pet Stores, including Defendant Animal
Kingdom, to mislead consumers about the “rescue” status of the puppy mill dogs sold
to Plaintiff and the Class.
314. The Sham Rescue Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk, TBHF LLC, Coda Subject,
and Subject Enterprise each provided substantial assistance and encouragement to the
Pet Stores, including Defendant Animal Kingdom, to enable them to sell puppy mill
dogs misrepresented as “rescues” to California consumers, including Plaintiffs and the
Class, with knowledge that the Pet Stores would misrepresent the true source of the
dogs.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 74 of 79 Page ID #:74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-75- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
315. J.A.K.’s knowingly acquired puppies from private breeders and puppy
mills, and in concert with Coda Subject, Subject Enterprise, Kirk, TBHF LLC, and the
Sham Rescue Defendants, laundered them through the fake animal rescue groups to
the Pet Stores, including Defendant Animal Kingdom, for sale to unsuspecting
California consumers as Puppy Mill Ban compliant “rescue” animals.
316. The Sham Rescue Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk, TBHF LLC, Coda Subject,
and Subject Enterprise sourced dogs from puppy mills and arranged for their transport
into California with knowledge of the dogs’ provenance. The Sham Rescue
Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk, TBHF LLC, Coda Subject, and Subject Enterprise had
actual knowledge that the puppies picked up for transport after “rescue” were in fact at
J.A.K.’s, if temporarily housed away from the puppy mills at all, and then transported
into California for sale.
317. The Sham Rescue Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk, TBHF LLC, Coda Subject,
and Subject Enterprise perpetuated this scheme to launder dogs sourced from puppy
mills for sale as “rescues” at California pet stores, including at Defendant Animal
Kingdom, beginning before and continuing well after the effective date of the Puppy
Mill Ban.
318. The Sham Rescue Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk, TBHF LLC, Coda Subject,
and Subject Enterprise had actual knowledge that all dogs acquired by J.A.K.’s for
transport and sale at California pet stores, including at Defendant Animal Kingdom,
were sourced from puppy mills outside of California.
319. Even without knowledge of the Pet Stores’ wrongful conduct, The Sham
Rescue Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk, TBHF LLC, Coda Subject, and Subject Enterprise
are separately responsible for and liable for the CLRA violations by the Pet Stores
because they gave the Pet Stores substantial assistance in violating the Puppy Mill
Ban, UCL, and CLRA. In addition, The Sham Rescue Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk,
TBHF LLC, Coda Subject, and Subject Enterprise’s own conduct, separately
considered, is a breach of the duties to Plaintiffs and the Class. The Sham Rescue
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 75 of 79 Page ID #:75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-76- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk, TBHF LLC, Coda Subject, and Subject Enterprise owed
duties to the Plaintiffs and the Class, including duties to not commit intentional torts,
to avoid exposing Plaintiffs and the Class to foreseeable harms, and a duty to not
injure Plaintiffs and the Class by violating California laws. The Sham Rescue
Defendants, J.A.K.’s, Kirk, TBHF LLC, Coda Subject, and Subject Enterprise
breached these duties with their own tortious conduct, including their active
participation in the scheme to launder puppies in violation of the Puppy Mill Ban, the
UCL, and RICO, as described herein. This conduct resulted in the dissemination of
the deceptive and untrue representations regarding the true “rescue” status of the dogs
sold to California consumers, including to Plaintiffs and the Class Members.
320. As a result of Defendant Animal Kingdom’s violations of the CLRA,
which are aided and abetted by all other Defendants, Plaintiffs and Class Members
have been injured and lost money, including but not limited to the purchase price of
the dogs and the cost of associated accessories and services. If Plaintiffs and Class
Members had known the truth about the puppies’ provenance and the illegality of their
sale, they would not have purchased the dogs or paid the premium prices they did.
321. Under California Civil Code § 1780, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves,
Class Members, and the general public, seek an order from this Court:
f. For injunctive relief requiring all Defendants to disclose, on their
websites and at their stores, that they sell puppies sourced from puppy
mills; and
g. Plaintiffs intend to amend the Complaint pursuant to California Civil
Code § 1782(d) for damages, including actual damages, restitution, and
punitive damages, should all Defendants not timely comply with the
impending or, in the case of Defendant Animal Kingdom already
received, preliminary notice served in compliance with California Civil
Code § 1782.
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 76 of 79 Page ID #:76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-77- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unjust Enrichment
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
322. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations of
the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
323. Defendants have unjustly received and unjustly retained Plaintiffs’ and
Class Members’ money by concealing the provenance of dogs, misrepresenting the
dogs as rescues, distributing and selling dogs in violation of the Puppy Mill Ban, and
selling Plaintiffs and Class Members accessories and services associated with their
purchase of dogs. California law does not allow sale of commercially bred dogs for
profit, and Defendants have done exactly that, at Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’
expense.
324. Plaintiffs and Class Members seek disgorgement of profits for this unjust
enrichment.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
325. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class,
request the following relief:
a. An order certifying that this action is properly brought and may be
maintained as a class action, that Plaintiffs be appointed the class
representative, and that Plaintiffs’ counsel be appointed counsel for the
Class;
b. An order declaring Defendants’ conduct to be in violation of applicable
law;
c. An order enjoining Defendants from selling in California dogs sourced
from puppy mills or commercial breeders and from transferring such
dogs into California for sale.
d. An accounting and disgorgement of Defendants’ ill-gotten gains from
their unlawful conduct;
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 77 of 79 Page ID #:77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-78-COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
e.Restitution, disgorgement, refund, and/or other monetary damages
including but not limited to any compensatory, incidental, or
consequential damages, together with costs, disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to the applicable statutes and
prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law;
f.Statutory damages in the maximum amount provided by law;
g.Punitive and/or treble damages in accordance with proof and in an
amount consistent with applicable precedent, including those available
under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) and Cal. Civil Code § 3294;
h.An award to Plaintiffs and Class Members of reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs;
i. All such other and further relief as may be deemed just, necessary, or
proper.
Dated: December 16, 2021 By: ____________________________
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
Isabel Callejo-Brighton (SBN 333181) 525 E. Cotati Ave Cotati, CA 94931 Telephone: 707.795.2533, Ex. 1078 Facsimile: 707.795.7280 Email: icallejo-brighton@aldf.org
Caitlin M. Foley (IL Bar. No. 6323904)* 150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 707.795.2533, Ex. 1072 Facsimile: 707.795.7280 Email: cfoley@aldf.org
Ariel Flint (NYS Bar No. 5593991)* 2125 24 St. Astoria, NY 11105 Telephone: 707.795.2533, Ex. 1058 Facsimile: 707.795.7280 Email: aflint@aldf.org
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 78 of 79 Page ID #:78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-79- COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC
By: /s/ Claire Tonry
Claire Tonry (WSBA No. 44497)*
Knoll D. Lowney (WSBA No. 23457)* 2317 E. John Street Seattle, Washington 98112 Telephone: (206) 860-2883 Facsimile: (206) 860-4187 knoll@smithandlowney.com claire@smithandlowney.com
smithandlowney.com
*(pro hac vices forthcoming)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 79 of 79 Page ID #:79
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1-1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:80
CLRA Venue Affidavit of Plaintiff Rebecca Carey
DECLARATION OF REBECCA CAREY 1
I, Rebecca Carey, hereby declare and state as follows: 2
1.I am a Plaintiff in this lawsuit. I make this affidavit pursuant to California Civil3
Code Section 1780(d). 4
2.I am a competent adult, over eighteen years of age, and at all times material to this5
action I have been a resident of California. 6
3.The facts contained in this affidavit are based on my personal knowledge and7
information that I have gathered and is available to me, and if called upon to do so, I would 8
testify to the matters stated herein. 9
4.The Complaint in this action is filed in the proper place for trial because at least10
one named Defendant was doing business in this County and it is the County within which a 11
substantial portion of the events, acts and omissions at issue in the Complaint arose. 12
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California and of the 13
United States that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge. 14
15
Date: ___________________ _______________________ 16
Rebecca Carey 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
December 13, 2021
-80-
Case 5:21-cv-02095 Document 1-1 Filed 12/16/21 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:81