STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIO;R COURT

KENT, SC. -

HEIDI CONLEY, DONNA HARLEY,

474%
:
,

JOHN DOE, & JANE DOE,

Plaintiffs
=

C.A. NO": RC7 l

V.

CARE FOR ANIMALS, INC.;

PAAWS RI; ANNETTE RAUCH, DVM;
Dr. TYRELL, DVM,
Defendants

EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR REELIEFJ

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTORY RELIEF

Introduction
l

The parties in the above captioned matter are involved in a ci\:/il

dispuie over internal

policies with respect to the care, placement, and sheltering of more than 30
M cajts placed with z >2
D
'

. . .
V . .
I
.

.
.

:c m
Defendants. {More spemcally, dlspute resulted from the euthanl'zmg of A cat
thls the shelt%. 1n
D
< 2 m .
i:

m
:

l
.

. . f . . . l
c:
1ncontradlctlon the long held and followed corporate pohcy. Th13?act10n
to protest then
g a_nd 53 {:23
-.

ems;
Um
r
i

resulted in one associate being terminated from employment while on medica leave. Other 3;
'
i

i
s9 Q C:8
m.
associates, with previously granted authority to place shelter cats in foster care homes, remo don
:5:
ii

all of the remaining cats from Defendants' premises.

Defendants made social media posts and contacted the media'with defamatory statements

about the Plaintiffs. These posts are still viewable and have been shared with; media outlets in

Oregon and Colorado, despite Defendants being informed of their defamatoryl content, and the

removal of any social media response by Plaintiffs. Furthermore, attempts toiresolve this matter

through a mutual agreement were frustrated, and then broken off by Defendants. 'Lastly, Rhode
|

Island Department of Environmental Management has been notied of this situation, and
I

l
irreparable haml shall result without an injunction to ensure the proper care, and treatment of the

cats involved.

Parties

. Heidi Conley (hereinafter "Conley" or "Plaintiff") is a resident of the State of Rhode

Island, serves as Secretary of Care for Animals, Inc., and a founding volunteer of Paaws
RI.

Donna "Pumpkin" Harley (hereinafter "Harley'" or "Plaintiff') is a resident of the State of

'

Rhode Island, and volunteer at the Care for Animals, Inc./PaaWs RI.
|

John/Jane Doe are other potential person(s) directly involved With this dispute.

Collectively, Conley and Harley shall hereinafter be referenced as "Plaintiffs".

Care for Animals, Inc (hereinafter "Care" or "Defendant") is a Rhode Island corporation,
of which, Annette Rauch is the President, with an ofce in W'arwick, RI.

Paaws RI (hereinafter "Paaws" or "Defendant") is a Rhode Isiand regiistered non-prot,

that operates in a partnership with Care, and has Annette Rauch serving as President.

Dr. Annette Rauch (hereinafter "Rauch" 0r "Defendant") is a doctor of veterinary

medicine, and serves as the President of both Care and Paws.

Dr. Tyrell (hereinafter "Tyrell" or "Defendant") is a doctor of veterinary medicine, and

has a business 0r nancial interest in Care and/or Paaws, and exerts many managerial
contrOl over both organizations.

Collectively, Care, Paaws, Rauch, and Tyrell shall hereinafter be referenced as

"Defendants".

Jurisdiction

10. The amount in controversy is sufcient t0 invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

11. This Court has subj ect matter jurisdiction over the matters in this com'plaint pursuant t0
theRWIGL 8- 2-1 R....1GL 8--2 13; andR....IGL 8- 2- 16etseq., whichgrantthe
Superior Court jurisdiction over such civil disputes and matters of equity.

12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over matters in this complaint pursuant t0
provisions of the Declaratory Judgment Act, R.I.G.L. 9-30-I et seq., which grant the
Superior Court jurisdiction t0 determine certain legal questions relating to the property
rights of the Plaintiffs and Defendants under certain contracts, assignments, powers of
attorneys, and deed.
|

1
1'3. Venue is appropriate in the Court pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 9-4-4.

General Facts and Allegations i

14. Heidi was one of the founding members of Paaws, and a volunteer since its inception.

15. Heidi also served as a grant writer, raising the necessary funding and ah accompanying
volume of successful work to successfully win grants t0 the benet of Defendants.

16. .Heidi' s work for Defendants created good will from the greater animal loving community
within Rhode Island, as her work allowed Defendants to meet the stated mission as led
with the Rhode Island Secretary of State.

17. On or about October 4, 2017, Defendants were contacted by the Rhode Island Society for
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals t0 assist in a "horrendous case" of hearding in
Pawtucket.

18. Twenty-one (21) cats were removed from deplorable conditions and taken to the safety of
thePaaws shelter to receive treatment and care.

19. Defendants solicited donations from the public to pay for the care andlhousing of these
cats.

20. On October 27, 2017, Heidi received a warning letter from Defendants, informing her
that her position was in jeopardy.

21. Defendant's letter of October 27, 2017 also stated that "We don't have time right now t0
save animals." ~

22.
Defendant' s letter of October 27, 2017 also stated that "Saying n0 toferals and semi-
"
ferals is crucial

23. Defendant s letter of October 27, 2017 also stated that "CFA (Care) will n0 longer give
"
discounts ofany kind to Paaws RI animals.

24. On November 2, 2017, Defendants discussed euthanizing a cat sheltered at Paaws, named
Kayak.

25. On November 6, 2017, Defendants discussed euthanizing a cat sheltered at Paaws, named
Tulip. .

26. On the morning ofNovember 7, 2017, a cat designated "Hoarder 13" was euthanized
without Heidi' s consent or consultation, which contradicts the' standard procedure used 1n
'

the course of business and operation.

27. On the evening ofNovember 7, 2017, the remaining Paaws cats were removed by staff
due to concern for their safety.

28. Staff member(s) involved in this removal had keys, alarm codes, and prior authority t0
place shelter cats into foster homes to ensure proper care of the animalis.

29. Staff member(s) also cleaned the oers of Defendants' premises, and l'eft a note for
Defendants with details that cats were being placed in foster homes, arid phone number
for Defendants to call Harley for any questions with respect t0 the rechation.

30. At 12: 56 AM on Saturday, November 11, 2017, Defendants posted a defamatory face
book post regarding this removal.

31 This post, in part, stated that the animals were removed by a disgruntleid employee, with a
.

vendetta, and that the animals were transported away in pickup trucks 'and being housed
in garages, and being denied necessary medical treatment.

32. Each of the aforementioned assertions are false, and Plaintiffs notied Defendants.

33. Plaintiffs, while the cats were removed from Defendants premises, haV'Ie taken several 0f
the cats to other doctors of veterinary care, and done so out atFtheir owfn cost.

34. Defendants allowed comments to be posted under this social inedia thread, until
defenders of the Plaintiffs started to offer the other story, at which tim'e, all further

comments have been deleted.

35. Defendants have made several edits and updates to this post, but have :not retracted any of
the defamatory content, despite Tyrell later acknowledging on Sunday November 12,
2017, that there ls no surveillance camera footage at the premises, andi therefore no
support for Defendants' inammatory assertion that the animals were transported 1n the
back of pickup trucks during a cold winter night. !

36. Late Saturday, Plaintiffs sought a resolution to return the catsiwith certain guarantees for
the cats' safety.

37. Upon information and belief, on or about November 11, 2017, Defendants used the threat
of arrest and criminal prosecution to coerce Plaintiffs silence.
I

38. Despite possible attempts at intimidation, there was an agreement to a'proposed return
date and time for the cats at ll AM on November 12, 2017.

39. Plaintiffs sought legal counsel and requested that the time be switched
to return the cats
to early afternoon on November 12, 2017, with the assurance that if Defendants could not
y

accommodate this sWitch request, that the Plaintiffs would workto make the 11 AM time.
 40. Defendants ceased all communication with Plaintiffs regarding when staff would be
available t0 accept the return of the cats, and the return date and time was then delayed
until sometime on November l3, 2017, after a written agreement coulcl be drafted.

41. On November 13, 2017, Defendants received a draft 0f the agreementlby 8:45 AM.

42. By mid-moming, WJAR Channel 10 News had reached out to Defendnts' legal counsel
for a statement, and later contacted Plaintiffs counsel.

i
43. Negotiations for the return of the cats broke down, with Defendants threatening further
i

court action, and thi eats of criminal prosecution, despite Warwick Police Department
declining to le charges with respect to this matter. -

44. On November 14, 2017, the Department of Environmental Managemeilt, ("DEM") an

agency tasked with oversight of animal hospitals and shelters 3will be ogpen for business
for rst time since this dispute escalated on November ll, 201 7.

COUNT 1
DECLATORY JUDGMENT
All Defendants

'45. Plaintiffs hereby re allege paragraphs 1 44 inclusive of this Complaint, as if set forth
herein verbatim.

46. As a r'esult of these facts and their legal consequences, Plaintiffs have no obligation to
return the cats absent proper oversight by DEM, at a neutral "no kill" animal shelter until
the merits ofthis case can be more formally heard. .

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment that this Court 1ssue an order, pursuant t0 the
Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, as follows. f

a. That judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' Complaint regarding their
right to possess the cats.

b. Alternatively, that a judgment be entered, placing the cats at a neutral "no kill" shelter

until this matter may be more formally heard.

c. That the Court award Plaintiffs their costs, including attomeys fees for the
prosecution of this matter. :

COUNT 2
Injunctive Relief
gAll Defendants!

47. Plaintiffs hereby re- alleges paragraphs 1 ~46 inclusive of this Complaint, as if set forth
herein verbatim.
 48. Defedants wrongfully euthanized cats entrusted to their care, and use:d t0 solicit
donations from Rhode Island.

49. Defendants have documented their desire to not shelter more than 10-1: 5 cats, and have
engaged in discussion to euthanize cats to "relieve stress."

50. Returning the cats in question to Defendants care could very likely lead to a high number
of the remaining cats being euthanized

5 1. Plaintiffs lack an adequate remedy at law to address the irrepairable haim and inj ury they
suffer, by losing their time, effort, work, and reputations should these eats be euthanized.

52. Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success 0n the merits of their underlying claims

53. The interest of the public favors the issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction
preventing the return of any 0f the removed cats to the Defendants, as ;the public has
already made donations to Defendants for the care and rescue of the ctts in question.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that this Court issue a preliminary and pegrmanent injunction:

a. Afrmatively requiring and directing the Defendants not to accept or seek the return of
these cats; and

b. Afrmatively preventing the removal 0f the cats from their icurrent foster care
placement, without further order of this Court; or i

c. DEM not to place these cats with Defendants; 0r

Afrmatively directing

d. Afrmatively directing DEM to place these cats with a neutral shelier; or

e. Granting such other and further relief that the Court deems meet and just under the
circumstances prevailing.

COUNT 3
DEFAMATION
gAll Defendants!

47. Plaintiffs hereby re-alleges paragraphs 1-53 inclusive of this Complaint, as if set forth
herein verbatim.

54. Defendants maintain a Facebook page, and have exclusive control over that forum of
social media and posts made there.

55. Defendants have demonstrated their continued control over this forum of social media, by
posting repeated updates/news releases there.

56. Defendants have made false assertions, and have already previously admitted t0 a lack of
factual basis to support some of the allegations contained in their communication or post.
 57. Defendants' communication makes statements that Plaintiffs were inv6lved in a serious
crime or felony, and as such constitutes "defamation per se" under Rh'ode Island law.

58. Defendants' communication was then repeated on news media within I:{hode Island.

59. Defendants communication(s) were made with in accordance with "malicious motives"
'

of the Defendants.

60. This communication was not privileged, and has been shared with more than ten (10)
different news organizations, including news markets 1n Colorado and Oregon

61. Thiscommunication exposes the Plaintiffs to ridicule, as evidenced b); the several
hundred comments made by persons within Rhode Island and- the United States to this
Facebook post' s content.

62. This communication reects negatively on Plaintiffs' character, morality, and integrity.

63. This communication impairs Plaintiffs nancial well-being, as it serves as a hindrance to

Plaintiffs ability to secure future employment in the eld of animal care.

64. This communication makes sufcient references to the Plaintiffs that a reasonable person
would understand that Defendants communication implicates Plaintiffs, again as
evidenced by the comments left by citizens of Rhode Island who correlctly identied the
Plaintiffs as the intended targets.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, individually, jointly and

severally in the amount of reasonable lost wages, other non-economicidamages, punitive
damages, costs, attomeys fees and any other award that this Court deems applropriate and just.

COUNT 4
WHISTLE BLOWER PROTECTION ACT
gAll Defendants!

65. Plaintiffs hereby re--alleges paragraphs 1- 64 inclusive of this Complaint, as if set forth
herein verbatim.

66. Plaintiffs knew that Defendants were accepting donations for the care of the cats rescued
from Pawtucket. 1

67. Plaintiffs knew that Defendants had discussed euthanizing some of tliese cats, and had
made written complaints that the presence of these cats "stressed" Defendants premises.

68. Heidi was terminated contemporaneously with making her opposition t0 Defendants
actions with regard to this dispute.
 I
|

69.Rhode Island General Laws 28-50-1 et seq. provide protections for employees who
make or are about to make a report to an appropriate public agency for the violation 0f Rhode
I

Island laws 0r regulations.

70. At the time of Heidi's termination, Defendants reasonably believed sh would report to

the Department of Environmental Management the actions of the Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, indivi:dually, jointly and

severally 1n the amount of reasonable lost wages, costs, attorney s fees and any other award that
this Court deems appropriate and just.

Plaintiffs,
Heidi Conley & Donna Harley;
By Their Attorney,

/J Ryan McNelis #8360 .

155 South Main Street, Suite 101

Providence, RI 02903
Tel (401) 243-4567 .

Fax (401) 3519653 i