Opinion ID: 2734145
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: City Court Proceedings

Text: Nine days after the seizure, on June 24, 2010, the parties appeared in Chattanooga City Court for a hearing. The court heard three days of testimony from multiple witnesses. R. 70-11 (6/24/2010 Hr’g Tr. 492) (Page ID #1667–68). The judge noted that “the heat in the store, accompanied with the sick animals in isolation, along with the smell necessitated their removal.” Id. at 496 (Page ID #1671). The judge concluded that the violations of the city code could be remedied and that the store had already fixed the air conditioner, and so decided “to pass this case for two weeks for the issues presented to be remedied and reinspected before any animals may be brought back for sale,” and to allow the state department of agriculture decide whether it would take any action. Id. at 502 (Page ID #1677). The judge ordered that the healthy animals be returned to Pet Supply to place them in another store that had no violations, but that animals could not return to the Hamilton Place Mall pet store until the store was inspected and approved by McKamey and the state department of agriculture, should it choose to participate. Id. at 502– 03 (Page ID #1676–77). The judge ordered that none of the sick animals would be returned until treated and cleared by a veterinarian. Id. at 503 (Page ID #1678). On July 14, 2010, the city court resumed proceedings. The judge concluded that Pet Supply had addressed “[t]he major issues” in the store. R. 69-8 (7/14/2010 Hr’g Tr. at 88) (Page ID #1348). She also ruled that she was “not going to revoke the permit or prohibit [Pet Supply] from operating their store at this point unless subject to the State, unless the state department of agriculture suspends or revokes No. 13-5181 United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga et al. Page 9 the license for some reason . . . . That’s my ruling today.” Id. She reserved the issue of expenses, fines, and court costs until the next hearing. Id. At the hearing on July 21, 2010, counsel for McKamey argued that Pet Supply needed to re-apply for their permit and could be issued a permit at the order of the court. R. 69-9 (7/21/2010 Hr’g Tr. at 113–14) (Page ID #1350–51). Counsel for Pet Supply argued that “[t]he Court ruled that we may get our license back, that it was not revoking our license. We should have the license returned to us, the same one that they took from our store.” Id. at 114 (Page ID #1351). Counsel for McKamey responded that licensure was “an administrative decision” and that Pet Supply had to re-apply. Id. The judge expressed confusion over whether the City of Chattanooga, McKamey, or the court had the power to decide whether the permit was revoked. Id. at 1352. The judge concluded that the citations for abuse and neglect were independent of the revocation of the permit: “I could still impose a fine and court costs on these violations for neglect, but they could be corrected or have been corrected, which would not result in the revocation of their dealer permit.” Id. at 116–17 (Page ID #1353–54). The judge concluded that she was “not going to withhold the permit subject to whatever the Tennessee Department of Agriculture does” and that she was “not going to require reapplication for something that has never been actually determined to be revoked, if that makes sense.” Id. at 117–18 (Page ID #1354–55). On July 26, 2010, due to the receipt of an ex parte email communication from the Chattanooga Mayor Ron Littlefield advocating for a particular outcome in the dispute, the judge declared a mistrial and recused herself. R. 69-10 (Mistrial Order at 1) (Page ID #1356). The case was assigned to a different judge, who granted Pet Supply’s motion to dismiss on the basis of double jeopardy. R. 69-12 (City Court Order at 3–4) (Page ID #1370–71). The judge stated that “[t]he court is [ ] of the opinion the City Court has no authority to revoke or make any order relative to the license of the Pet Company.” Id. at 3 n.1 (Page ID #1370). The judge ordered that the dogs should be delivered to a veterinarian, and once the veterinarian deemed the dogs medically fit they could be transferred to Pet Supply; the judge also ruled “that the dogs are not to be returned to [Pet Supply’s] store at Hamilton Place Mall.” R. 70-16 (Dogs Order at 1–2) (Page ID #1713–14). The dogs were delivered to the veterinarian on or around October 3, 2010. No. 13-5181 United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga et al. Page 10 R. 70-7 (Walsh Aff. at ¶ 46) (Page ID #1613). “McKamey incurred approximately $50,000 in expenses to provide shelter and veterinary care for the animals.” Id. at ¶ 47 (Page ID #1614).