San Diego Humane Society’s Legal Troubles Expose Contract Cities to Significant Liability

Court Ruling on Humane Society's Practices Exposes Legal and Financial Risks for San Diego County Cities

A landmark court ruling has rocked San Diego County, exposing systemic failures in animal welfare oversight and putting municipalities at serious legal risk. The Superior Court found that San Diego Humane Society’s (SDHS) practice of releasing domesticated cats into the community violates California animal welfare laws, putting municipalities that rely on such practices in jeopardy.

Despite the ruling, SDHS CEO Gary Weitzman has doubled down, stating, “The Community Cat Program remains in force as a lifesaving effort for animals in San Diego County.” This defiance not only raises ethical concerns but also exposes contracting cities to serious legal and financial consequences.

The Court’s Findings: A Breach of Law

On December 20, 2024, Judge Katherine Bacal delivered a decisive ruling against SDHS, finding its Community Cat Program in violation of multiple California laws designed to protect animal welfare. The judgment identified specific statutory breaches:

• Penal Code Section 597(s): Prohibits abandoning animals in ways that endanger their well-being.

• Penal Code Section 597.1: Requires humane officers to take possession of stray or abandoned animals and provide necessary care.

• Civil Code Section 1860(c): Mandates that shelters accept and care for abandoned animals brought to them.

The court singled out SDHS’s practice of labeling domesticated cats as “community cats” and releasing them into uncertain environments. This, Judge Bacal concluded, fails to comply with California's strict standards for animal care and sheltering, putting vulnerable animals at risk.

The idea that beloved pets were abandoned instead of sheltered strikes a deep emotional chord, eroding trust in local governance.

What Cities Expected vs. What They Got

City contracts with SDHS reveal clear obligations that clash with the organization’s controversial practices, as identified by the court.

Contracts require SDHS to:

• Provide Animal Sheltering Services: House and care for stray, surrendered, or injured animals for the required legal hold period; provide “humane disposition” for animals, including adoption services.

• Facilitate Adoptions: Offer adoption opportunities for animals in their care. However, reports suggest that SDHS closed adoption centers without public notice, leaving many cats without a chance for rehoming.

• Enforce Animal Welfare Laws: Investigate and enforce local and state animal cruelty laws. Instead, the court found that SDHS itself violated abandonment laws through its Community Cat Program.

• Comply with State Laws: Ensure that all operations adhere to applicable California laws—a standard SDHS has been accused of failing to meet.

These breaches not only undermine public trust but also place contracting cities at risk of being held liable for failing to oversee SDHS’s compliance with these terms.

Legal Exposure for Partner Cities

Municipalities contracting with SDHS—including Del Mar, Santee, Oceanside, Carlsbad, and others—now face serious legal and financial risks tied to their reliance on SDHS’s practices. These risks include:

• Breach of Contract Claims: If SDHS is found to have violated its obligations—such as failing to provide adequate shelter or adoption services—partner cities could face lawsuits from residents or advocacy groups demanding accountability.

• Non-Compliance with State Laws: By allowing the continuation of the Community Cat Program despite the court’s ruling, SDHS increases liability for cities failing to ensure compliance with California’s animal welfare laws.

• Financial Repercussions: Taxpayer funds allocated to SDHS may have been misused if the organization did not fulfill its contractual obligations. Cities could face penalties or be required to reimburse these funds.

• Public Backlash: For residents searching for lost pets, learning that animals might have been abandoned rather than sheltered could spark outrage, further eroding trust in both SDHS and local governance.

How Cities Can Mitigate Their Exposure

The court ruling has left municipalities across San Diego County facing significant legal and financial risks, demanding immediate action to restore public trust and protect taxpayer interests.

The first step is to conduct immediate audits of contracts with SDHS. City attorneys must carefully review these agreements to determine whether SDHS has breached its obligations, particularly in areas such as sheltering, adoption services, and compliance with state laws. Financial audits are equally critical to ensure that taxpayer funds have been used appropriately and in alignment with contractual terms.

Transparency is essential. Cities must demand detailed reporting from SDHS, including intake numbers, adoption rates, euthanasia statistics, and enforcement actions. These reports should not only clarify whether SDHS is meeting its obligations but also ensure compliance with California’s animal welfare laws moving forward. Without this transparency, cities risk further eroding public confidence.

If breaches are confirmed, legal remedies must be explored. Cities should consider renegotiating contracts to include stricter oversight provisions or terminating agreements altogether if SDHS’ actions are found to violate key terms. Indemnification clauses can be invoked to hold SDHS financially responsible for any claims arising from its practices.

Finally, communication with residents is paramount. City officials must proactively inform the public about the steps being taken to address these issues and ensure humane treatment of animals entrusted to SDHS’ care. Transparency in this process will help rebuild trust and demonstrate that local governments are committed to accountability.

In this moment of uncertainty, city officials have an opportunity to lead with integrity and resolve. By acting swiftly and decisively, city officials can protect their communities, ensure ethical use of taxpayer funds, and uphold humane standards for animal care.

A Call for Reform

Judge Bacal’s ruling exposes systemic failures in oversight and accountability within San Diego County’s animal welfare framework. Despite this clear legal determination, SDHS CEO Gary Weitzman has publicly defended the program as “the best solution for community cats” and vowed to continue it—a stance that challenges judicial authority and puts contracting cities at further risk.

This case is more than a legal dispute; it is a wake-up call for municipalities across San Diego County—and beyond—to reassess their reliance on third-party organizations like SDHS for critical animal services.

By being proactive now, cities can protect themselves from further liability while reaffirming their commitment to humane treatment for all animals under their care. This is an opportunity for local governments to lead with integrity, restore public trust, and establish a new gold standard for humane animal care. This case could serve as a turning point for improving animal welfare standards nationwide.

Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, 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.