Court Rebukes Riverside County on Animal Welfare: Key Lawsuit Claims Move Forward
Legal Battle Puts Animal Shelters Under Microscope: What’s Next for Riverside County?
In a significant legal development, a California Superior Court judge has partially upheld a lawsuit against Riverside County's animal services department, allowing key claims to proceed while dismissing others. The ruling, issued on March 24, 2025, by Judge Kira L. Klatchko of the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, addresses allegations of animal mistreatment and misuse of public funds in the county's animal shelters.
The case, Woodruff vs. Gettis (Case Number: CVPS2405127), accuses Riverside County of violating the Hayden Act, a landmark animal protection law requiring public shelters to provide veterinary care, hold stray animals for a minimum period before euthanasia, and make genuine efforts to adopt out impounded animals. Plaintiffs, led by Alan Woodruff and represented by attorney Dan Bolton of the Walter Clark Legal Group, seek to hold the county accountable for failing to meet these legal obligations.
Defendants include Riverside County, Riverside County Department of Animal Services (RCDAS), and Erin Gettis (former Director of RCDAS, in her official capacity). The lawsuit, filed by local residents, alleges widespread mismanagement of county shelters, violations of animal welfare laws, and misuse of taxpayer funds. funds.
Key Court Rulings
Riverside County attempted to dismiss the case through a legal maneuver known as a demurrer, arguing that even if the allegations were true, they did not establish a valid legal claim. The judge rejected that argument for several key claims, allowing the case to move forward on:
Failure to provide necessary and prompt veterinary care for shelter animals.
Violations of a county ordinance requiring the spaying or neutering of animals before adoption.
Failure to maintain proper records on impounded, euthanized, and adopted animals.
However, the court dismissed several other claims, including accusations of wasteful spending on consulting contracts and employment practices. The judge found these claims lacked sufficient factual detail but granted the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their petition and refile.
Hayden Act Nuances
A critical issue in this lawsuit is whether certain provisions of the Hayden Act impose enforceable legal duties or merely serve as aspirational policy statements. The law states that "no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home" and "no treatable animal should be euthanized." While these statements express California’s commitment to humane sheltering, the court ruled they do not create binding legal requirements unless explicitly funded by the state.
However, other sections of the Hayden Act impose clear, enforceable mandates on shelters. For instance:
Civil Code §1834.4 requires shelters to provide prompt veterinary care.
Food & Agriculture Code §32003 mandates accurate record-keeping for all animals taken in or treated by shelters.
In Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center v. County of Los Angeles (2023), a California appeals court upheld that public shelters must adhere to these provisions. The Woodruff case now tests the limits of how strictly these mandates will be enforced in Riverside County.
Scrutiny of Consulting Contract and Public Spending
One dismissed claim focused on allegations that Riverside County wasted taxpayer money on a $2.4 million consulting contract with Kristen Hassen, a controversial shelter consultant whose management strategies have drawn widespread criticism. Plaintiffs argue that Hassen’s approach—previously implemented in cities like Austin and Pima County—has contributed to worsening shelter conditions and rising stray populations.
The lawsuit contends that Hassen’s policies encouraged shelters to turn away strays or release them back onto the streets without adequate care, endangering both public safety and animal welfare. While the court found that plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to prove legal waste, it left the door open for them to amend their complaint with more details.
What Comes Next
Plaintiffs have 30 days to revise their complaint and strengthen their claims of mismanagement and financial waste. If the amended complaint withstands further legal challenges, the case will advance to discovery, where both sides will be required to exchange evidence on shelter operations, financial expenditures, and compliance with state laws. A trial could follow, bringing testimony from shelter staff, consultants, and animal welfare experts.
Beyond Riverside County, this case signals growing scrutiny of municipal shelter practices statewide. If successful, it could set a precedent for greater legal accountability in animal welfare cases.
For shelters across California, the message is clear: humane treatment and fiscal transparency are no longer optional. This lawsuit has the potential to redefine how public shelters operate—and whether taxpayers can demand better outcomes for the animals in their care.
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, City of Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
Stay Informed
For more analysis and updates on the evolving landscape of animal welfare policy, visit Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
Hello from Pima County, AZ referenced in article. Can someone with direct access to petitioners provide this evidence, perhaps helpful, to amend wasteful spending petition.
There is a fairly recent video (I'd have to dig to find it but it's out there perhaps on FB 'Fix our Shelters" or "Cal Animals Exposed"), where Hassen is defending her contract to RIVCO supervisors. She has Monica Dangler beside her (looking uncomfortable at misrepresentations for RIVCO) boasting about how Dangler ran the "largest foster program in US" representing that a substantial foster program could help solve RIVCO's shelter disaster.
She is referring to Pima Animal Care Center (PACC) where Dangler was director until she resigned to join Kristen Hassen at Outcomes Consulting for this contract and presumably others.
The presentation is entirely dishonest. What Hassen doesn't say is such a foster program requires 2-3 foster coordinator positions and A MEDICAL CLINIC TO SUPPORT THE FOSTERS which RIVCO couldn't fund since they haven't funded the basics.
Dogs available for fostering are the big (over 40 lb), elderly, with medical issues, deteriorating from shelter stress. The puppies and super adoptable dogs are not available for foster. The fosters are responsible for all supplies except medical which almost no one would foster a dog needing medical treatment not provided by shelter at today's private clinic prices.
The only reason PACC is a modernized shelter with support programs and a CLINIC is because Tucson community generously passed a 22 million dollar bond issue in 2014 to expand the shelter, previously a 1960's dungeon with around 30% live outcome and no medical care (except vax) not even simple antibiotics. Shelter dogs can now be treated for a range of conditions.
Kristen Hassen was PACC director prior to Dangler (resigned to join Outcomes Consulting). As Director, Dangler ordered several UNNECCESSARY consulting reports for PACC by Outcomes Consulting paid for by Friends of PACC--- the auxiliary funding support. The extent of these wasteful contracts is being investigated. Obviously dirty.
Hassen and Dangler have built this fraudulent resume on the accomplishments of others, the Tucson community's collective effort to modernize the shelter to an exemplarily standard happened before they were involved.
Sadly, due to the Best Friends and Maddies ideology and doctrines that Outcomes Consulting espouse, PACC shelter now has the same crisis and critical overcapacity as shelters nationwide and an exploding stray population in the community.
Yet Maddies and Best Friends tentacles are still at work trying to extract every bit of monetization from overpopulation shelter crisis which is their BUSINESS MODEL. Pouring thru their abundant literature and videos there is NOT ONE WORD about accessible spay neuter as priority.
The fact that the supervisors have not done due diligence in awarding the 2.5 million contract to Hassen, based on her many fraudulent claims, could be used to resubmit a petition for wasteful spending. They should have made basic inquiries into the PACC foster program that Hassen touted with Dangler to sell her contract to RIVCO to discover it was totally unrealistic without significant funding commitment. I can be contacted thru Animal Politics for more information.
This is great news Ed and long overdue. The recent incident I sent you about was Riverside allowing a rescue to pull 2 week old puppies from a mother and then immediately took the mother directly to the back room and euthanized her. There reasoning was that she was aggressive!!! New puppies only two weeks old!! I want to offer a 2K reward for information on the rescue that would do that and then let them euthanize the mother. The incident was all over facebook.