1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

Luisa Lupi and §

Eva Lupi §

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. §

§ 

Officer Timothy Diven AP4417, §

Officer Jaime von Seltmann AP5984, §

Officer Rocky Reeves AP7219, §

Officer Michael Guetzke AP4690, §

Officer Lauren Villareal AP7343, §

Officer Jerry Floyd AP4559, §

Officer Ewa Wegner AP4623, §

Officer Alan Schwettmann AP5826, § CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:20-cv-207

Officer Joshua Visi AP4416, §

Officer Sgt Michael Lewis King AP4127, §

Officer Brian Robinson AP6683, §

Code Enforcement Officer Thomas Horn, §

Code Enforcement Inspector Joseph Lucas §

Officer Number 6609, §

Elizabeth Glidden, §

McKenna Kuhr, §

EMS Technician Timothy Hedrick, §

EMS Technician/Driver Steve White, §

City of Austin, §

Travis County, §

Defendants. §

PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs file this Application for a Preliminary Injunction to (1) prevent the irreparable 

loss and death of Plaintiffs’ aged pets that were seized illegally without a warrant, consent, 

probable cause, or exigent circumstances, and (2) prevent the irreparable loss of Plaintiffs’ 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 1 of 34
2

irreplaceable antique jewelry that was stolen in the illegal search of Plaintiffs’ home without a 

warrant, consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances.

2. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges numerous violations of their constitutional rights protected 

by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, and by the laws of Texas. Several violations can be remedied only by the 

immediate release of Plaintiffs’ dogs and missing antique jewelry from the defendants. Plaintiffs 

can show a substantial likelihood of success on most if not all of their claims. In particular, the 

merits of Count I – A(c) “Seizure of Plaintiffs’ four dogs without a warrant or consent” and 

Count III – A. “Texas Theft Liability Act” of the Complaint compel the immediate release of 

Plaintiffs’ dogs and jewelry that have a unique irreplaceable nature to Plaintiffs.

II. ARGUMENT

3. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must clearly show (1) a substantial likelihood 

that he will prevail on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that he will suffer irreparable injury if the 

injunction is not granted, (3) his threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the party 

whom he seeks to enjoin, and (4) granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public 

interest. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee, 862 F.3d 445, 457 (5th Cir. 2017).While 

each factor must be shown, their relative importance will vary in each case—i.e., they should be 

applied on a case-by-case basis, sliding-scale basis. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Realm of La. v. 

East Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 578 F.2d 1122, 1125 (5th Cir. 1978). “Where one or more of 

the factors is very strongly established, this will ordinarily be seen as compensating for a weaker 

showing as to another or others.” Id.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 34
3

Background

4. Plaintiff Eva Lupi (“Eva”) is the older sister of Plaintiff Luisa Lupi (“Luisa”). Both are 

law-abiding citizens and have never been charged or convicted of any crimes. Eva is an attorney.

She has a BS degree in Aerospace Engineering and a BA degree in Economics from the University 

of California Los Angeles (UCLA), an MA degree in Government and International Relations 

from the University of Notre Dame, and a JD degree in law, cum Laude, from Southern Methodist 

University Dedman School of Law.

5. Luisa received her Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from California State University 

Northridge, wrote several theses, and worked as a lifeguard. She works as an artist and does not 

require or need anyone’s assistance in her daily life. She has been slim and healthy.

6. Luisa has never been diagnosed with any mental disabilities or illness nor has she sought 

any such medical assistance. She has no history of physical disabilities, mental disabilities, or 

criminal behavior. She takes no medication.

7. Luisa has an actual disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) known as 

dyslexia, which is a learning disability shared by millions of people in the US and can be 

accompanied by a slight speech impediment.

8. Plaintiffs bought and moved into their home located at 6837 Auckland Dr., in Austin, Texas 

in 2011. The home was fully paid for and is free of mortgage. Although paid for by both Plaintiffs, 

the title was intentionally taken under Luisa’s name by Plaintiffs. 

9. Plaintiffs have been animal lovers. They moved in with their four beautiful and wonderful 

dogs, 100% indoor pets—named, Sheera (aged 7 in 2011), an Australian Shepherd, Polar Bear 

(aged 8), a mix of Labrador Retriever and Husky, Indiana (aged 9), a mix of Rhodesian RidgeBack 

and Hound, and Ruby (aged 10), a mix of Australian Shepherd and Rhodesian Ridgeback. (See 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 3 of 34
4

Exhibits A-D) At the time of the events at issue in this case, all four dogs had been living with 

Plaintiffs at least 9 years as Plaintiffs’ crucial family members—virtually their children in 

Plaintiffs’ eyes. 

10. Plaintiffs did not have any problems with their neighbors for the entire seven years and 

always had good relations with them until around September 2017 when a new neighbor, 

Defendant Elizabeth Glidden (“Ms. Glidden”), moved in next door. 

11. Luisa has never had mental disabilities or illness. Luisa has dyslexia, which is often 

classified as a disability under the ADA and can be accompanied by a slight problem in speaking. 

12. Ms. Glidden didn’t want a disabled person—she perceived Luisa to be mentally disabled

although she and Luisa had never spoken with each other—living next door, so she concocted 

continually escalating false complaints to Austin Police about Luisa. To remove Luisa permanently 

from the neighborhood and take her home and assets, Austin Police conspired with Ms. Glidden,

Defendant McKenna Kuhr (“Ms. Kuhr,” who lived seven miles away from Plaintiffs’ home) and 

the officers from other departments of both the City of Austin and Travis County, to create a set 

of false reports reflective of the worst discriminatory statements and attitudes towards Luisa. 

13. On March 30, 2018, due to alleged calls from Ms. Kuhr, Officers Villarreal and Guetzke 

conducted a welfare “check” on Luisa. (See Exhibit E)

14. Officer Villarreal asked Luisa, “Are you going to hurt yourself?” Luisa replied, “No.” 

Officer Villarreal then asked, “Are you going to hurt somebody else?” Luisa replied, “No.” 

15. Luisa calmly thanked the officers and informed them she did not need anything. 

16. Officer Villarreal wrote in her report, “I observed that Luisa appeared to be extremely thin 

and frail given her weight (5’7 approx 90lbs). I observed that Luisa’s clothing also had a strong 

smell of being soiled and there appeared to be LICE in her hair. Her clothing was too large for her 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 4 of 34
5

size and her pants were covered in animal hair. Her cheeks were sunken in and her hair was also 

very thin.” (See Exhibit F)

17. Luisa’s clothing was nice and clean and no smell at all as always. She has been slim and 

healthy (she weighed 110 lbs, not 90, in the hospital on April 17, 2018, just two weeks later). She 

likes wearing loose clothing at home as many people do. She has very thin hair due to 

Nordic/Scandinavian ancestry on both sides.

18. Officer Villarreal claimed that she could see “lice” (See Exhibit F) while standing a few

feet away from Luisa. It is medically impossible, however, because the detection of lice requires 

careful close-up work even by trained doctors, sometimes involving a microscope. That claim and 

later (on April 17) Officer Diven’s similar claim (while standing approximate 10-15 feet away

from the front door of Plaintiffs’ home and from Luisa) (See Exhibit G) are contradicted by all 

rational medical personnel and the Texas Department of State Health Services as well.

19. In over 20 minutes of conversation on March 30, Officers Villarreal and Guetzke did not 

go into Plaintiffs’ house and did not see Plaintiffs’ pets inside the house. They did not ask Luisa 

about the pets.

20. That same day, having left Plaintiffs’ home, Officer Villarreal consulted with Ms. Glidden 

to check Luisa’s backyard and Ms. Glidden took the officer into her backyard to view Plaintiffs’. 

Officer Villarreal determined that "Luisa’s “backyard appeared to be fine.” (See Exhibit H) 

21. Still on that same day, Officer Villarreal stated in her report that Ms. Glidden said she was 

planning on making a report to Adult Protective Services because she thought Luisa was unable to 

care for herself due to her disabilities. Ms. Glidden also allegedly reported one of Plaintiffs’ pets 

for having a “large sore on it’s [sic] face,” and another for having ribs that were sticking out. (See 

Exhibit H)

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 5 of 34
6

22. The “large sore” is a small growth about the size of a pinky nail that had been tested and 

found benign, to be removed electively during his next anesthesia. Even the Austin City Vet Rachel 

Hays (“City Vet Hays”) who examined the pet called the growth “small.” Plaintiffs’ other dogs

had complex allergies that had resisted all medical treatment and they were packed and ready to 

move to a low allergen part of the country for his sake at the time the incidents of this case occurred.

23. Officers Villarreal and Guetzke did not go back to ask Luisa to check or verify what Ms. 

Glidden alleged “large sore” or “sticking out” rib issues with the pets or her perception of Luisa’s 

disabilities.

24. On April 5, 2018, Officer Robinson, Lead Investigator, wrote that “This case [Luisa’s case] 

does not meet the criteria for Nuisance Abatement. The title code has been modified to an EDP 

[presumably Emotionally Disturbed Person] case and routed.” (See Exhibit I)

25. Plaintiffs believe that the police modified Luisa’s case on April 5 because the cameras 

inside Plaintiffs’ home would disapprove Nuisance Abatement case. Further, the police did not 

have neighbors’ support (except Ms. Glidden) because Luisa was well liked and everyone knew 

of her extraordinary ability with animals, and the care she lavished on them, as well as her 

kindness. (See Exhibit L - L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8) 

26. On April 6, according to Officer Seltmann’s report, Defendant Officers determined that 

Luisa “was not an imminent threat to herself or others; however, the CIT Unit was notified for 

follow-up due to Luisa’s poor physical condition. Adult Protective Services was notified.” And a 

joint home visit with Adult Protective Service, Code Enforcement, Animal Cruelty and the 

Community Health Paramedic Program was planned for April 17, 2018. (See Exhibit J)

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 6 of 34
7

27. Between April 5 and 16, Eva called the police, as recommended by Officer Guetzke on 

March 30, seven times in total. However, no one called Plaintiffs back. The police ignored 

Plaintiffs’ every effort to communicate with them. 

28. On April 17, multiple people went to Luisa’s house and brought with them an animal 

control truck, a Code Enforcement vehicle, a car with a plastic seat molded in shape of a person 

and numerous restraining straps across the waist and chest and bars on the windows, and several 

other vehicles.

29. In sum, Defendant Officers carefully planned ahead of time the home invasion of Luisa on 

April 17, 2018 and illegally seized Luisa, illegally entered and searched Plaintiffs’ home, and 

illegally seized Plaintiffs’ dogs in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights protected by the 

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 

30. All defendants, including Ms. Glidden and Ms. Kuhr who acted to be the police witness 

sources in this case, conspired to conduct all the unlawful actions in a bid to permanently remove 

Luisa, whom they perceived to be mentally disabled, from her own home and the neighborhood.

31. Defendants’ harassment of Plaintiffs has been ongoing. Code Enforcement officers are still 

harassing Plaintiffs with false code violations and threatening to file legal action against Luisa

(See Exhibit X). On February 12, 2020, they attached a citation to Luisa’s door alleging code 

violation of “Accumulation of rubbish or garbage” that occurred on April 17, 2018 at 2:16 p.m. 

(See Exhibit P) when Luisa Lupi had been illegally detained in the hospital.

32. The next day, February 13, 2020, Plaintiffs were finally forced to move out of their home 

due to almost two years constant harassment and fear that were created by all defendants since 

April 17, 2018 when Plaintiffs decided to stay there to await their dogs’ return.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 7 of 34
8

A. Plaintiffs are substantially likely to prevail on the merits of their claims under the 

Fourth Amendment because Defendant Officers illegally seized Plaintiffs’ dogs with no 

warrant, no consent, no probable cause, and no exigent circumstances.

1. Defendant Officers did not have legal right to enter and search Plaintiffs’ 

home; Defendant Officers did not have legal right to further seize Plaintiffs’ 

dogs inside the house without a warrant, consent, probable cause, or exigent 

circumstances.

Officer Diven stated in his Follow Up Report #4, April 19, 2018, 

“... The 4 dogs were then all transported to the Austin Animal Center

where they will be cared for. Based on the conditions of the house and 

the animals and the horrific living conditions, I believed that these 

animals were cruelly treated. I then completed a seizure warrant and 

...” (See Exhibit K)

33. At the time Plaintiffs’ dogs were seized by Defendant Officers, they did not have a warrant. 

34. The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, 

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.

“The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history. At the very 

core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable 

governmental intrusion.” Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 

734 (1961) (internal citation omitted).

35. Earlier in the morning on April 17, 2018, Luisa went out to take her beloved pup (not one 

of the four dogs seized) to a vet for surgery. 

36. Luisa took a taxi in both directions. Her appearance and behavior were completely normal, 

neat, and tidy in every respect when the veterinarian and the taxi driver saw her. (See Exhibit L -

L1, L5)

37. Luisa had been up for over 24 hours watching over Plaintiffs’ dogs. After she returned 

home from her trip to the vet, she put her clothing in the laundry as they did every time after 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 8 of 34
9

coming home from outside and showered due to concern about Indiana’s allergies, and put on her 

comfortable pajamas sweats to worry and wait while her best friend was in surgery.

38. At around 9:00 a.m., in broad daylight, multiple people gathered on the front porch of 

Plaintiffs’ home bringing an animal control truck, a Code Enforcement vehicle, a car with a plastic 

seat molded in shape of a person and numerous restraining straps across the waist and chest and 

bars on the windows, and several other vehicles. They called out Luisa’s name over and over. 

39. Plaintiffs’ dogs were kept inside Plaintiffs’ house and the dogs could not be seen from the 

outside of the house.

40. Luisa went on the porch, without yelling at all, contrary to Officer Seltmann’s statement in 

her report (See Exhibit M), to see what they needed and closed the door behind her. Luisa was in 

her pajamas and did not have a bra on. Both her hair and clothing were clean because she had just 

gotten out of the shower. She has clear, healthy skin. She did not have bugs or lice and has never 

had! The same day photos taken by Luisa herself after she was seized also showed that she did not

have any bug bites on her clear skin. (See Exhibit W)

41. Office Diven, like Officer Villarreal, claimed in his report that Luisa was covered in bugs. 

Officer Diven also claimed that, although he was “standing 10-15 feet away” from the front door, 

he saw “lice crawling over [her]” and that he could see lice and “smell urine.” (See Exhibit G) In 

fact, neither lice nor urine were present.

42. Officer Diven’s claims appear to be made with the intention of increasing his own 

credibility and the believability of the police fabrication by being the second person to mention 

lice after Officer Villarreal’s mention, and to corroborate and bolster her earlier similar lice claim.

43. The people at the front porch, including Officer Horn, did not identify themselves as police. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 9 of 34
10

44. When Luisa went on her front porch, the police blocked her exit forward. Officer Seltmann, 

wearing rubber gloves, immediately approached Luisa and tried to put her arm around Luisa’s 

back and shoulders and grabbed her left wrist while Officer Reeves was grabbing her right wrist 

on her own front porch, hurting her wrists. Luisa said to the officers, “Please stand back,” and 

retreated a few inches until her back was against the door of the house. Luisa was afraid for herself 

and immediately afraid for Plaintiffs’ pets inside the house because she was their only protector 

there at the time. 

45. While the officers were pulling Luisa down the driveway, Officer Seltmann said to Luisa, 

“We’re going to take you to the hospital get you checked out.” “Walk or we’ll carry you.”

46. Officer Seltmann and Reeves then pulled Luisa down the driveway and across the street. 

Officer Seltmann said to Eva, “It’s not her choice. It’s my choice. That’s my decision. I’m just 

telling you what’s happening. I’m in charge.” 

47. Luisa told the officers, “Please loosen your grip – you’re hurting me,” but Seltmann and

Reeves did not do so. Officer Seltmann and Reeves threatened to handcuff Luisa, saying, “If you 

keep pulling I’ll put handcuffs on you.” Luisa was forced to wait in the sun, essentially on display 

on a neighbor’s lawn across the street from her home. Luisa was not even given a chance to put on 

her regular clothes instead of her pajamas without a bra on. The two officers illegally seized Luisa 

with no warrant, no probable cause, no consent, and no exigent circumstances.

48. Luisa informed the police that she “ha[s] to stay here to take care of the dogs.” And Luisa

never agreed for the police to seize Plaintiffs’ dogs.

49. Luisa told the police several times that they CANNOT go in [Plaintiffs’ home].

50. When Luisa instructed the police that they cannot go into the house, Officer Seltmann said, 

“Yes, we can.”

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 10 of 34
11

51. Luisa called out on the phone “Help me!” to Eva. And Eva could hear Luisa say “No” 

several times.

52. The police would not let Luisa get her keys to lock the house, power cord for her cell phone, 

or a hairband for her hair.

53. Officer Seltmann could be heard on the audio, saying “I need to take her to the hospital.”

54. Plaintiffs’ home was closed (doors and windows), but Defendant Officers entered 

Plaintiffs’ home anyway with no warrant, no probable cause, no consent, and no exigent 

circumstances. Defendant Officers entered and searched the home, took Plaintiffs’ beloved dogs, 

and stole and retained Plaintiffs’ valuables, although there were no exigent circumstances; 

Defendant Officer did so in disregard of Luisa’s repeated instructions that they cannot enter her 

house.

55. Luisa was forced to enter the EMS truck. When she was told that Officer Seltmann said 

she was bitten by bugs from Luisa, she pieced together that Defendant Officers were intentionally 

fabricating facts and that they were going to try to take her to a hospital/mental health facility. 

Luisa pushed up her sweatshirt sleeves and asked EMS technician Hedrick to view her arms and 

write that she had no bites of any kind on her arms. Hedrick replied, “I’m not going to undress 

you, ma’am.”

56. EMS ordered Luisa to get in the EMS van, then get into the gurney in the van, and lay 

down on the stretcher. EMS strapped Luisa to the gurney with three straps across her ankles, knees 

and thighs. The van driver White wanted to put straps across Luisa’s shoulders, but Hedrick 

stopped him, saying, “I don’t think she needs that.”

57. Luisa was taken to Seton Medical Center Austin. The hospital advised that Luisa was not 

in need of any treatment and would not admit her, but the police would not let her leave. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 11 of 34
12

58. Luisa was illegally and inhumanely detained in a hot and unventilated room of the hospital 

for more than eight hours without food or water.

59. Luisa never consented that the police could enter or search Plaintiffs’ home without a 

warrant. Neither did Eva.

60. There were no justified exceptions to Defendant Officers’ warrantless entry and search of 

Plaintiffs’ home.

61. Officer Von Seltmann once said in a newspaper article that she based her entry into 

people’s homes on her own “gut feelings,” entering homes to “suss out” what’s happening 

whenever her “gut feelings” tell her to. (See Exhibit N)

62. Eva informed the police twice that Luisa wanted a lawyer and one of the officers responded 

that Luisa was not entitled to have an attorney.

63. Having seized Luisa, Defendant Officers, including Officer Schwettmann, used a pole with 

a wire on the end of it to grab Plaintiffs’ senior dogs, ages 14, 15, 16, and 17, around the necks 

and drag them away, (See Exhibit O) taking Plaintiffs’ four best friends and family members from 

Plaintiffs’ house. Officer Diven can be heard on the video saying, “She’s [Luisa] not getting these 

dogs back, and neither is the sister [Eva].” 

64. Defendant Officers did not take the cats, leaving them alone and unprotected, without the 

person who had taken care of them for so long and who had ensured that they always had clean 

water and food. Defendant Officers just left them, likely because it would take too long to grab 

them, and the officers never came back for them.

65. The dogs were then all transported to the Austin Animal Center. Defendant Officers did 

not have a warrant or consent at the time they seized Plaintiffs’ dogs.

66. After the dogs had been unlawfully seized with no warrant, no probable cause, no consent, 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 12 of 34
13

and no exigent circumstances, Officer Diven then completed a seizure warrant and petitioned the 

Justice Court, Precinct 5, Travis County, Texas (JP5) to divest ownership of the dogs from Luisa 

until a hearing could be had to determine proper placement of the dogs. (See Exhibit K)

67. Defendant Officers, including Officer Diven, were not really concerned about the welfare 

of the dogs: They did not even ask Luisa about the dogs when they saw her on April 17. They did 

not ask her whether the dogs had any existing medical conditions and what those were.

68. Defendant Officers carefully planned their April 17, 2018 home invasion to Luisa ahead of 

time as shown by the below facts:

▪ In his report on April 5 (which was checked by Officer Sgt King the same day), 

Officer Robinson wrote: “This case does not meet the criteria for a Nuisance 

Abatement. The title code has been modified from Nuisance Abatement to an EDP

[presumably Emotionally Disturbed Person] and routed.” (See Exhibit I)

▪ Officer Seltmann wrote in her report that Luisa was not an imminent threat to herself 

or others; however, the CIT Unit was notified for follow-up due to Luisa’s “poor 

physical condition”; that Adult Protective Services was notified. Officer Seltmann 

wrote, “On April 6, I received an email from Det. Diven from Animal Cruelty 

concerning this case. After reading the above report, I determined that a home visit 

needed. Joint home visit with Adult Protective Services, Code Enforcement, Animal 

Cruelty and the Community health Paramedic Program planned for April 17, 2018.”

(See Exhibit J)

▪ Officer Diven wrote in his report, “[4/6/2018] I emailed Ofc. Von Seltmann with CIT 

to inquire as to their plans to deal with Lupi,” “[4/12/2018] Ofc. Von Seltmann 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 13 of 34
14

advised that they have scheduled a home visit with Lupi on Tue, Apr 17 at 930a. We 

agreed to met [sic] her out there.” (See Exhibit G)

▪ As stated earlier, between April 5 and 16, Plaintiffs called the police, as 

recommended by Officer Guetzke on March 30, seven times in total with no response 

at all. 

▪ On April 17, multiple Defendant Officers, as assigned and approved by Officer King

(See Exhibit S) (who was also briefed later that day after Lusia was forcibly taken to 

hospital) (See Exhibit Q), brought with them an animal control truck, a Code 

Enforcement vehicle, a van equipped for special purposes, and several other vehicles. 

They did not ask Luisa during their encounter with her about the pets, such as if the 

dogs had any preexisting medical conditions and which they had.

▪ Defendant Officers seemed to be there to only carry out their plan: they went there to 

simply seize Luisa, enter and search the house, and seize the dogs with no warrant, 

no probable cause, no consent, and no exigent circumstances. 

69. Immediately after the April 17 home invasion by Defendant Officers, Plaintiffs told 

everyone that the conditions portrayed by the police were fabricated and asked if the proper 

authorities would like to come to Plaintiffs’ house and see that the conditions portrayed by the 

police were false. But the police refused.

70. As shown above, Luisa never consented that the officers could seize Plaintiffs’ dogs. The 

dogs were inside Plaintiffs’ house and the dogs could not be seen from the outside. When Luisa

went on the front porch to see what the people needed and closed the door behind her. 

71. And there were no exigent circumstances since Defendant Officers well planned the home 

visit to Luisa on April 17, 2018 and had even brought animal control truck when they went to 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 14 of 34
15

Plaintiffs’ home. Defendant Officers had sufficient time to at least attempt to obtain a warrant to 

enter and search Plaintiffs’ home, seize Plaintiffs’ dogs, or both before their warrantless entry and 

search of Plaintiffs’ home and warrantless seizure of Plaintiffs’ dogs.

72. Even assuming there were any exigent circumstances that Defendant Officers could claim, 

the exigencies of the circumstances could not justify their illegal seizure of Plaintiffs’ dogs because 

Defendant Officers entered and searched Plaintiffs’ home at the beginning with no warrant, no 

consent, no probable cause, and no exigent circumstances. 

73. “’[T]he chief evil against which...the Fourth Amendment is directed’ is warrantless entry 

and search of home.” Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 331 (1980) (internal citation and 

quotations omitted).

74. Therefore, Defendant Officers first illegally entered and searched Plaintiffs’ home without 

a warrant, consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances, and then illegally seized Plaintiffs’ 

four dogs without a warrant, consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances, in violation of 

Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

75. No reasonable officer would have entered and searched Plaintiffs’ home under the same or 

similar circumstances as Defendant Officers did without a warrant, consent, probable cause, and 

exigent circumstances, and Defendant Officers should not be entitled to qualified immunity.

76. No reasonable officer would have seized Plaintiffs’ four dogs under the same or similar 

circumstances as Defendant Officers did without a warrant, consent, probable cause, or exigent 

circumstances, and Defendant Officers should not be entitled to qualified immunity.

2. Defendant Officers never obtained a valid warrant for the seizure of 

Plaintiffs’ dogs.

(a) Officer Diven obtained an invalid warrant for the seizure of Plaintiffs’ 

dogs based on a false affidavit after the actual seizure.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 15 of 34
16

77. “The Supreme Court has defined probable cause as the facts and circumstances within the 

officer's knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, 

in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about 

to commit an offense." Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181, 204 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted). Probable cause cannot exist where the affidavit supporting 

a warrant contains materially false statements or omissions that are deliberate falsehoods or 

evidence a reckless disregard for the truth. Deleon v. City of Dallas, 345 Fed.Appx. 21, 23 (5th 

Cir. 2009) (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 

(1978)).

After-The-Fact Warrant

78. As stated above, after the four dogs were seized and all transported to the Austin Animal 

Center, “I [Officer Diven] then completed a seizure warrant...”

False Affidavit Used to Apply for a Warrant

79. Only, and only, after the police illegally seized Luisa, illegally searched Plaintiffs’ home

and illegally seized Plaintiffs’ dogs, Officer Diven then completed his under-oath affidavit to apply 

for a warrant for the seizure of Plaintiffs’ pets—an affidavit filled with numerous false, and even 

deliberately fabricated material statements as articulated below:

• Luisa had a caretaker that moved out about 8 months ago and that no one had been 

coming by to care for Luisa since. 

The statement is false because Luisa never has had a caretaker at any time—she has been 

able to take care of herself and sometime her sister Eva as well—and Eva did not move out. 

• Luisa appeared to be intellectually challenged and was unable to care for herself due to 

her mental disabilities. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 16 of 34
17

The statement is materially false because Luisa never has had any mental disabilities and 

she has been taking care of herself.

• The trash [from Plaintiffs’ home] had not been put out for months.

The statement is false because Luisa, sometimes Eva, has been putting out their trash when 

they needed (often about every four weeks since they produced very small trash and not at all when 

they were traveling).

• A foul odor emanating from the house.

The statement is false because Plaintiffs always kept their home nice and clean and there 

was no smell from the house.

• Luisa was never seen bringing any food into the house.

The statement is misleading because Luisa ordered delivery food many times. Sometimes 

Plaintiffs went out to eat. 

• Luisa was believed to be hoarder...

The statement is false because Luisa was never a hoarder. Plaintiffs did have wellorganized items in moving boxes, which is not hoarding. They were on the way preparing for 

moving to a new larger home from a three-bedroom house. 

• Luisa was “... living in unsanitary conditions.” 

The statement is materially false because Luisa has been living in sanitary conditions 

shown by the fact that Plaintiffs always keep their house nice and clean and well organized. 

• The house smelled strongly of urine and feces when Luisa opened the door on April 

17, 2018.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 17 of 34
18

The statement is knowingly false because when the police went to the front porch of 

Plaintiffs’ home, Luisa had just got out of shower and put on her clean pajamas and there was no 

smell of urine or feces from Luisa or the house.

(Officers Villarreal and Guetzke made similar false statements that “the house smelled 

strongly of urine and feces when she [Luisa] opened the door” and “...the house smelled strongly 

of urine and feces when she opened the door.” (See Exhibit F) In his report, Officer Reeves also 

claimed, in “corroborating” other officers’ stories, “... upon walking up to the front door I could 

right away smell a strong urine/ammonia smell coming from the house.” (See Exhibit Q)) 

• Luisa was very thin and frail, and her clothing was soiled and smelled.

The statement is false because Luisa was slim but very healthy. And her clothing was nice 

and clean and no smell. 

• Luisa had what appeared to be lice in her hair.

The statement is false and intentionally fabricated to paint a very negative picture of Luisa 

because she has never had any lice nor has anyone in Plaintiffs’ family. And the detection of lice 

requires careful close-up work even by trained doctors, sometimes involving a microscope—

Officer Diven, standing 10-15 feet away from the front door, was not in a position to make that 

detection.

• Eva advised the officers that Luisa was taken care of. 

The statement is false because Eva did not make that advice and Luisa has never needed to 

be taken care of.

• Neither Eva nor Luisa were very cooperative with providing information.

The statement is false because the police were provided with all the information they asked 

for. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 18 of 34
19

• On the scene, Defendant Officers determined that Luisa was a danger to herself based 

on what the officers observed, and they completed an emergency detention on Luisa in 

order to have her mentally evaluated.

The emergency seizure statement did not say what Defendant Officers observed that Luisa 

was a danger to herself.

• Plaintiffs’ two red colored dogs found inside Plaintiffs’ home had very bad 

mange/allergies...

The statement is intentionally fabricated because Officer Diven and other Officers on the 

scene were not in a position to identify the mange/allergies shown by the facts that: (a) Even the 

City Vet Hays admitted later, after examining the dogs and first claiming she identified the mange 

issue, that the two dogs did not have mange; (b) Identification of allergies is more complex than 

mange and even the City Vet Hays was not able to deduce allergies until Plaintiffs told her. 

• [Indiana]... would not get up and walk and had to be carried to the truck [by Officer 

Schwettmann]. 

The statement is untrue and misleading because Indiana was very old and was just terrified 

by aggressive strangers hurting Luisa and invading the home.

• There was a yellow large mixed breed dog that had a large sore on its face.

The statement is false because the “large sore” is a small growth about the size of a pinky 

nail that had been tested and found benign. Even the City Vet Hays who examined the pet called 

the growth “small.” 

• The inside of Plaintiffs’ home was a typical hoarder house. 

The statement is false because Plaintiffs had well-organized items in moving boxes, which 

is not hoarding. They were about to move to their new home from a three-bedroom house.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 19 of 34
20

• The smell of ammonia was very strong.

The statement is false because Plaintiffs’ home was nice and clean and no smell. 

• Luisa was covered in bugs.

The statement is false and deliberately fabricated because Luisa never had bugs and did 

not have at the time she was seized. Luisa’s skin was clear and healthy as evidenced by the photos 

taken by herself the same day, after she was seized.

• There was trash, debris, and belongings stacked floor to ceiling in all corners of 

Plaintiffs’ home.

The statement is false because there was no trash or debris except in trash bags—Plaintiffs 

recycled dog and cat food bags and used them as recycling bags. Plaintiffs’ moving boxes were 

stacked; boxes had some of Plaintiffs’ personal items on top that were not going to be packed in 

the moving van but were going to be taken in their SUV—and they were only in some corners.

• A window was opened in a room to allow Plaintiffs’ cats to get in and out as necessary 

to survive.

The statement is intentionally made misleading because the only window opened was 

seven feet high that was almost impossible for Plaintiffs’ domestic cats to get in and out. It is more 

likely that the window was opened so that someone might get in and out later.

• Luisa cruelly treated the dogs.

The statement is false because Plaintiffs provided only great care and love to their dogs—

virtually their children—and neither Luisa nor Eva ever cruelly treated them. (See Exhibit L - L1, 

L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, L9)

• Two of the four dogs were in really bad condition.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 20 of 34
21

The statement is false and misleading because the two dogs, Ruby and Indiana, were very 

old but happy, warm and cool as appropriate, fed lavishly, always had access to lots of fresh water, 

and were loved, understood, and cherished.

Warrant Containing Contradicting Information 

80. The JP5 received Officer Diven’s Affidavit for Seizure of Animals on April 17, 2018 at 

2:41p.m. and issued the warrant for seizure of animals. (See Exhibit R)

81. But it seems that Officer Diven obtained the warrant at 2:20 p.m., even 21 minutes before 

he applied for the warrant, and executed the warrant at 3:00 p.m. (See Exhibit T)

(b) Plaintiffs provided great care and love for the four dogs—never cruelly 

treated them by torturing them or by unreasonably depriving them of 

necessary food, care and shelter.

82. Plaintiffs adopted Sheera, Polar Bear, Indiana, and Ruby, the latter two were medically 

fragile, and all were from difficult situations. Plaintiffs loved them as their own children, gave 

them a chance for a great life, and spent large amounts of money on their cutting-edge medical 

care illustrated below:

• Full body CAT scan (Ruby)

• Successful treatment of usually fatal Mast cell tumor (Ruby)—because Plaintiffs 

identified the tumor so early, this normally fatal tumor was completely operable,

and Ruby made a full recovery 

• Ultrasound – gallbladder and liver (Polar Bear)

• Full allergy panel (Indiana)

• ACTH Stim test x 3 (Polar Bear)

• Laser removal of cutaneous lump on spinal area (Sheera)

• Dental 3X annually per veterinary recommendation for the four dogs

• Gland Biopsy (Sheera)

• Extra round of heartworm tests for all when returning from a trip to the South for 

the four dogs

• X rays

• EKG for the four dogs

• Prescription Food (Sheera and Indiana)

• Thyroid testing (Indiana)

• Limited ingredient specialty food for all dogs

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 21 of 34
22

83. Plaintiffs kept a chart (See Exhibit U) to ensure that the lives of the dogs were fully 

addressed and not overlooked when taking the dogs to vet visits. Plaintiffs not only created the 

chart, they also updated and maintained it, for each dog and cat. 

84. Plaintiffs’ pets went everywhere with them—skiing, to the beach and on special outings. 

Each has their own calendar of favorite activities, including agility, swimming, sheepherding, etc. 

85. Each dog had a leash geared towards their special needs. Further, each dog had an 

emergency harness that could be used to securely transport each dog in case of emergency or 

frightening situation for them.

86. Great care was taken in selecting life jackets: The first issue was the type, which had to 

ensure that it would keep the dogs in the correct position in the water; second, the presence of a 

durable but low profile safety handle so it would not create a snagging danger; third, the 

individualized fit to ensure that each dog had a properly fitting team life jacket; fourth, each dog 

and human had their own jacket in the team colors. 

87. The dogs had gigantic beds. Because Indiana had become incontinent, everything was 

cycled through the laundry quickly. Plaintiffs had multiple replacement sets of linen for each dog 

bed and human bed, just in case.

88. The dogs were never put in a crate. 

89. The four dogs had their own bowls of special food. The dogs shared any dog safe, allergy 

safe meals with Plaintiffs.

90. The heating and air conditioning in Plaintiffs’ house were adjusted for the dogs’ comfort. 

In summer, when the dogs went out to the bathroom and came back in, Plaintiffs would turn down 

the air conditioner to a temperature at which everyone stopped panting, then continued to adjust. 

In winter, the house was comfortably heated, but the dogs still each had comfortable covers and 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 22 of 34
23

blankets for longer naps. Both Plaintiffs constantly got up to check on the dogs and tuck them in—

they were supervised all day and night.

91. Plaintiffs studied each of their dog’s special issues and built ramps and made other 

modifications so the ones with special needs could play easily with their brothers and sisters. 

Plaintiffs put out wading pools in the summer and built them observation posts so the dogs could 

better see the terrain around.

92. Indiana had the significant skin problems from the time Plaintiffs adopted him. In hopes of 

identifying the problem allergen, they cooked at home for him and their other dogs for over a year 

and a half, using organic ingredients from Whole Foods. Indianan had been extensively tested. 

Plaintiffs had tried every medical treatment available for him. In consultation with their vet, 

Plaintiffs’ next plan was to move to a different environment, where allergens would be reduced 

(Austin was, and still is, known as “allergy central”). (See Exhibit L - L3, L6, L7, L8) They had 

noted a reduction in Indiana’s symptoms during their trips to certain locations in the country and 

intended to move there. They had packed their household, planned and prepared for the move in 

April 2018, and were ready to go when Defendants turned their happy and innocent home into a 

nightmare that never ends. (See Exhibit L - L3, L6, L7, L8) 

93. Even Judge Phillips, presiding at the county hearing (on appeal), observed, “This house 

looks like it was designed for dogs.” The case was initially filed by the police with the Justice 

Court Precinct Five to deprive Plaintiffs of their ownership interests of the dogs the same day, 

April 17, 2018, after the police illegally seized them.

94. With incredibly great care that Plaintiffs provided for their dogs (See Exhibit L), Sheera,

although 14 years old at the time she was seized, looked like a young pup. City Vet Hays, having 

examined the dogs the same day of the seizure, estimated that Sheera was 6 years old, based on 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 23 of 34
24

how well cared for Sheera had been. Like Sheera, Polar Bear was estimated to be 6 years old (he 

was actually 15) and Ruby approximately 10 (actually 17). (See Exhibit L - L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, 

L6, L8, L9)

95. Polar Bear was an excellent judge of character: After being illegally seized and sent to 

Austin Animal Center by Defendant Officers, the center could not manage him, and he sat in a 

cold crate without the love he so desperately needed. But far from being unmanageable, Polar Bear 

was Plaintiffs’ ambassador with all the injured and abused animals Plaintiffs took in. The more 

vulnerable his sibling was, the more careful he had been with them. (See Exhibit A, B, C, D)

96. Ruby was Luisa and Eva’s beloved late Mom’s special friend. Ruby was their closest link 

to their Mom. Ruby always took care of them—and Defendant Officers snatched Ruby at the door 

of her own home and forced her into a world of awful strangers who stole her life. She was 

supposed to be moved into Plaintiffs’ new home in the spring of 2018, enjoying life on the beach 

and in the mountains. Instead, she’s being held captive by strangers, and likely looked around 

hopefully to see if Eva and Luisa had come to take her home yet. Her beautiful eyes, which had 

helped Plaintiffs through a dozen traumatic events in the last few years before the incidents in this 

case, and to which they promised safety forever, were no longer smiling at them.

97. When Defendant Officers invaded Plaintiffs’ home on April 17, 2018, there were (1) four 

large white airtight containers of dog food throughout the house in plain view of the cameras, (2) 

an additional large container and two more unopened large bags of the dogs’ specialty food in the 

pantry, and (3) empty dog food bags being reused to take out recycling (stack of approximately 4 

feet of flattened bags in plain view), contrary to Officer Diven’s testimony under oath in court later 

that he saw no evidence of food. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 24 of 34
25

98. In the audio (which had been first claimed by County Attorney Cox to be unavailable, then 

was “found” accidentally by a court tech at the appeal hearing), Defendant Officers can be heard 

saying:

• “It’s actually sanitary in here,” and “The floor is actually clear.”

• Officer Diven and another officer can be heard counting the numbers of large bowls 

of clean water for the dogs such as “this is number two,” “there’s another one over 

here,” etc.—water so crystal clear that the officers had to kick the bowl to determine 

that there was water in there.

• “The back yard looks normal.”

99. After the four dogs were unlawfully taken by Defendant Officers, they did not allow Eva 

or Luisa or their vet to see or examine the dogs. 

100. Under the direction of Austin Police, City Vet Hays conducted full blood tests on the dogs. 

The test results showed that EVERY SINGLE FUNCTION MEASURED WAS NORMAL: There 

was no lameness, no heartworm, no lung problems, no other symptoms normally associated with 

their advanced age, and no other problems. All four dogs had ABSOLUTELY PERFECT 

BLOODWORK IN EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY.

101. City Vet Hays falsely listed in her same day examination report that the dogs had 

tapeworms, which are transmissible, but Plaintiffs and the cats did not have them, as they would 

have if the dogs had them. Ms. Hays noted Tapeworm, however, did not administer tapeworm 

medication until the next day as if someone later suggested or instructed her to put the tapeworm 

notation down, because if tapeworms were so obvious then she, as the City Vet, should have 

noticed them right away.

102. Officer Seltmann claimed in her initial report, “...the two of the dogs appeared to have 

severe cases of mange.” (See Exhibit V) Officer Diven in his affidavit under oath claimed that on 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 25 of 34
26

the scene, “inside the house, 4 dogs were found. The two red colored dogs had very bad 

mange/allergies to where the fur was missing on over half their bodies.” (See Exhibit R) City Vet 

Hays also identified the “mange” issue after she examined the dogs. She later testified at court on 

April 24 that the dogs had mange.

103. At the June 13 hearing, however, City Vet Hays admitted under oath that she understood 

and no longer believed that Ruby and Indiana had mange.

104. A competent vet could have tested for mange in a matter of minutes. City Vet Hays held 

on to her incorrect mange belief for days. She was unable to deduce more complex things like 

allergies until Plaintiffs told her.

105. Allergy is a complex assessment requiring a highly trained eye and hundreds of dollars in 

test. City Vet Hays proved that she did not have a highly trained eye:

• She did not know what an average Australian Shepherd lifespan was.

• She did not know the average lifespan for large dogs.

• She did not know that large dogs generally have a much lower life span.

• She made gross errors regarding the weight of Plaintiffs’ four dogs.

• She was unable to determine the age of the dogs within a reasonable standard of 

care for vets—within what would be normally expected of vets.

• She misdiagnosed a simple illness like mange, which the dogs did not have.

106. Plaintiffs’ pets were not just their best friends, they were also therapy and service dogs for 

Luisa, helping to keep her active and healthy and cope with her dyslexia. The dogs seemed to 

instinctively hang out, sleep, and play right next to Plaintiffs, maybe because they created an oasis 

of happiness, warmth, and health. (See Exhibits A, B, C, D)

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 26 of 34
27

107. When the dogs went zooming out to go to the bathroom, the backyard came alive with 

cheerfulness. Eva and Luisa built them agility equipment, bought supplies for fun and for them to 

learn interesting new communication techniques and tricks. (See Exhibits A, B, C, D)

108. The dogs kept the back yard safe, alive, and happy for Eva and Luisa and their family. Now 

it is empty—only the echoes of happy times remain—and it is too painful for Plaintiffs to go into 

the backyard, which only makes them cry.

109. Plaintiffs’ dogs were essential to balance their family. Without the dogs, Plaintiffs were, 

still are, and will be, incomplete.

110. At the time Luisa was forced by the police to get into a EMS van that she did not want or 

need, she saw the last view of her formerly happy home—behind the doors were their dogs and 

cats, who for almost 10 years had only known happiness and safety. Behind the door was that little 

slice of heaven that Plaintiffs had built over a lifetime, where their pets had known a lifetime of 

safety and love.

111. Luisa never agreed that Defendant Officers could seize Plaintiffs’ dogs. Neither did Eva. 

112. Had Luisa given the police consent to seize Plaintiffs’ dogs, Officer Diven did not need 

to—after all the dogs were seized and transported to the Austin Animal Center—“then complete[d] 

a seizure warrant” (See Exhibit K) with an affidavit full of knowingly false statements (See Exhibit 

R).

113. Neither Luisa nor Eva ever cruelly treated Plaintiffs’ dogs. Neither Luisa nor Eva ever 

cruelly treated the dogs by torturing them or by unreasonably depriving the animals of necessary 

food, care and shelter. (See Exhibit L - L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, L9)

114. Plaintiffs never cruelly treated and indeed took good care of not only the four dogs, but all 

of Plaintiffs’ pets. (See Exhibit L - L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8, L9)

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 27 of 34
28

115. Just an example, one of the rescues Plaintiffs worked with needed a hospice home for a 

senior, blind Chihuahua they had rescued. The rescue expected the dog to live no more than a 

month. Plaintiffs volunteered to take the dog and keep her safe and happy. The rescue was careful 

to say that the dog was not going to live more than a month. Under Luisa’s care the dog lived for 

2 years, running, happily sleeping the in the arms of her friend Polar Bear, playing with the other 

dogs, barking at the doorbell. The dog had a full dental, her heart trouble was discovered and 

treated, and Luisa managed a complex schedule of medications that had to be prepared and 

administered.

116. Therefore, even the warrant Officer Diven had after the seizure of the dogs was invalid for 

the lack of probable cause; the probable cause did not exist because Officer Diven’s affidavit 

supporting the warrant contained materially false statements that were deliberate falsehoods or 

evidence a reckless disregard for the truth as detailed previously. 

117. In sum, Defendant Officers did not have a warrant at the time they seized Plaintiffs’ dogs.

Defendant Officers did not have Plaintiffs’ consent to seize the dogs. The warrant Officer Diven 

obtained after the seizure of the dogs cannot render the illegal seizure legal because it was obtained 

after the seizure and it was invalid anyway for the lack of probable cause. Defendant Officers’ 

illegal actions violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights protected by the Fourth 

Amendment.

118. No reasonable officer would have deliberately made materially false affidavit to show 

probable cause and thus obtain a warrant after a seizure was completed under the same or similar 

circumstances as Defendant Officers did without a warrant, consent, probable cause, or exigent 

circumstances, and Defendant Officers should not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 28 of 34
29

119. No reasonable officer would have seized Plaintiffs’ four dogs by deliberately fabricating 

material statements to show probable cause and thus obtain a warrant after the seizure was 

completed under the same or similar circumstances as Defendant Officers did, and Defendant 

Officers should not be entitled to qualified immunity.

B. Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on their claims that Defendant Officers 

illegally took Plaintiffs’ personal property, the jewelry, in their home while Defendant 

Officers illegally entered and searched Plaintiffs’ home in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment and the Texas Theft Liabilities Act.

1. Substantial likelihood to succeed under the Fourth Amendment

120. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable seizures and searches.

121. Luisa received her house keys at about 3:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. while she was in the hospital. 

Defendant Officers had spent at least FIVE AND HALF hours searching and ransacking Plaintiffs’ 

home as the officers pleased.

122. After entering Plaintiffs’ home, Defendant Officers had been rummaging through every 

corner of the house, including bank records, client records, attempting to download the security 

system videos, digging through hard drives with intellectual property, opening letters, overturning 

boxes, breaking fragile items, and taking whatever valuables and cash they found and wanted. 

123. Defendant Officers entered and searched Plaintiffs’ home without a warrant, consent, 

probable cause, or exigent circumstances in violation of Plaintiffs’ clearly established 

constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.

124. No reasonable officer would have entered and search Plaintiffs’ home under the same or 

similar circumstances as Defendant Officers did without a warrant, consent, probable cause, and 

exigent circumstances, and Defendant Officers should not be entitled to qualified immunity.

125. A number of items, including Plaintiffs’ antique jewelry, which were in the house before 

the police illegal search, were discovered to be missing after the search.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 29 of 34
30

126. Defendant Officers took these items with the intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their property 

rights because the officers never returned the items to Plaintiffs. 

127. The total market value of the stolen jewelry items is around $220,000. Below is a list of 

these items: 

• Watch – Patek Philippe women’s oval, 18k band and case, valued at $35,000

• Watch – Patek Philippe women’s cream face, calligrapy numerals, 18k Gold band, 

valued at $35,000

• Chronograph Men’s platinum band, Hublot, valued at $80,000

• Men’s mail bracelet 18k gold, cream face, 18k case, Patek Philippe, valued at $38,000

• Watch – women’s 18k band, Longines, valued at $14,000

• Pocketwatch – 18k case, engraved, light cream face, manual winding, valued at 

$15,000

• Necklace – twisted gold chains, valued at $3,000 

2. Substantial likelihood to succeed under the Texas Theft Liabilities Act

128. Defendant Officers’ illegal search of Plaintiffs’ home and stealing of a number of 

Plaintiffs’ personal property, including the antique irreplaceable jewelry listed above, in the home

also violated the Texas Theft Liabilities Act. Sec. 134.002(2) of the Act defines that "theft" means 

unlawfully appropriating property or unlawfully obtaining services as described by Section 31.03, 

31.04, 31.06, 31.07, 31.11, 31.12, 31.13, or 31.14, Penal Code. Sec. 134.003(a) of the Act states, 

“A person who commits theft is liable for the damages resulting from the theft.” Defendant Officer 

did not have legal authority to take these personal property items; Neither Luisa nor Eva ever 

consented that Defendant Officers could take these items. Defendant Officers knew that they did 

not have any property rights in these items. Defendant Officers stole these items with intent to 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 30 of 34
31

deprive Plaintiffs of their ownership rights in these items as evidenced by the fact that the police 

never returned the stolen items to Plaintiffs. And Plaintiffs suffered financial loss of around 

$220,000 from Defendant Officers’ stealing.

129. Therefore, Plaintiffs clearly establish that they will be substantially likely to prevail on the 

merits of their claims under the Fourth Amendment that Defendant Officers illegally seized

Plaintiffs’ jewelry without a warrant or consent and under the Texas Theft Liabilities Act that 

Defendant Officers stole Plaintiffs’ jewelry with the intent to deprive them of their property rights. 

Plaintiffs hence meet the first requirement for granting the preliminary injunction application. 

C. There is a substantial threat that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if the 

injunction is not granted.

130. To show irreparable injury in a preliminary injunction context, it is not necessary to 

demonstrate that the harm is inevitable and irreparable. Humana, Inc. v. Jacobson, 804 F.2d 1390, 

1394 (5th Cir. 1986). A plaintiff need only show “a significant threat of injury from the impending 

action, that the injury is imminent, and that money damages would not fully repair the harm.” Id.

131. At the time the dogs were unlawfully seized by Defendant Officers, the dogs were already 

aged. Now, Sheera is 16 years old (equivalent to humans’ age of 87), Polar Bear, 17 (equivalent 

to humans’ age of 104), Indiana, 18 (equivalent to humans’ age of 96), and Ruby, 19 (equivalent 

to humans’ age of 101), and since the seizure, all the dogs have been held in strangers’ hands 

without the great care and love that they were provided by Plaintiffs—they might die at any time. 

And money damages would not repair or fully repair the harm to Plaintiffs resulting from the loss 

of their dogs.

132. The missing jewelry items were antique with particular personal significance and large 

quantities of precious metals, which are irreplaceable—they might be gone at any time because 

the metal could be converted and sold for its intrinsic value, and the timepieces can be sold and 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 31 of 34
32

never found again. Because of the antique and custom nature of the jewelry, there is no possibility 

of finding another “like” item, and they will not be recoverable forever. 

133. Plaintiffs therefore satisfy the irreparable injury requirement for granting the preliminary 

injunction application.

D. Defendants will suffer no threatened harm by immediate release of the dogs and 

jewelry and the public interest will not be disserved.

134. As shown previously, Plaintiffs had been lavishly treating the dogs as their children with 

the greater care that Plaintiffs could have possibly thought of and done, and with Plaintiffs’ endless 

love; neither Luisa nor Eva ever cruelly treated the dogs as Defendant Officers falsely claimed; 

Defendant Officers illegally seized the dogs and stole Plaintiffs’ jewelry. 

135. Defendants had no ownership interest in either the dogs or the stolen jewelry. 

136. Plaintiffs already moved out of Plaintiffs’ home on February 13, 2020, which was what all 

defendants wanted—Luisa’s not living in the neighborhood. 

137. There will be no harm to the defendants if the injunction is granted and the dogs and jewelry 

are immediately released since Defendant Officers’ unlawful actions would be rectified, they had 

no ownership interest therein, and they already received what they wanted. Even assuming the 

defendants had any interest, it would be outweighed by the harm Plaintiffs were, are, and will 

continue to suffer. 

138. The public interest in not continuing to incur the costs of keeping the dogs and jewelry 

resulting from the police’s illegal actions will be served—not disserved. Further, the public interest 

in ensuring that injustice or police abuse of power resulting in irreparable injuries is corrected as 

soon as possible will be advanced by the immediate release of Plaintiffs’ dogs and jewelry.

139. Plaintiffs thus satisfy the third and fourth requirements for preliminary injunctive relief—

harm to the defendants and public interest.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 32 of 34
33

E. Defendants will incur no costs, and no bond is needed.

140. Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) requires security to be posted before a preliminary 

injunction application is granted, trial courts have the discretion to require no security at all. 

Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 628 (5th Cir. 1996). Defendants will incur no costs in 

releasing the dogs and jewelry and indeed will save costs of continuing to keep the dogs and 

jewelry. No bond is necessary.

III. RELIEF REQUESTED

141. Plaintiffs request expedited consideration of their application for a preliminary injunction, 

but do not specifically request a hearing on the application. 

142. The application and all supporting papers have been served on all defendants. 

143. Plaintiffs will withdraw this application if Defendants stipulate in writing that they will 

immediately return Plaintiffs’ dogs and missing jewelry items to Plaintiffs.

144. Assuming that such stipulation is not forthcoming, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter a

preliminary injunction ordering all defendants to immediately release Plaintiffs’ dogs and stolen

jewelry items to Plaintiffs.

IV. CONCLUSION

145. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Application for a Preliminary Injunction 

Ordering all defendants immediately release Plaintiffs’ dogs and jewelry items to Plaintiffs should 

be granted. 

Dated: February 25, 2020. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 33 of 34
34

Respectfully submitted, 

By: s/ Kervyn B. Altaffer Jr. 

Kervyn B. Altaffer Jr.

State Bar No. 01116575

Email: kervyn@altafferlaw.com

Lunbing Chen

State Bar No. 24097493

Email: lunbing@altafferlaw.com

Altaffer & Chen PLLC

4054 McKinney Ave Ste 310

Dallas, TX 75204

Tel: 972-234-3633

Fax: 972-947-3663

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This Plaintiffs’ Application for a Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support is being served 

upon each defendant by hand delivery. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 6 Filed 02/25/20 Page 34 of 34