Thursday, January 16, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

The fur keeps flying

The case against Meadows Pets has been dismissed. But the store isn't out of the doghouse yet

By Andrew Kiraly

Christmas is puppy season, and Meadows Pets--the store whose owners were indicted last year on 18 felony counts of obtaining money under false pretenses ("Little Pet Shop of Horrors," Sept. 26)--no doubt provided many a would-be Santa this season with dogs, cats and birds. Owner Judy Palmieri had more reason than that to celebrate the season: All the charges brought against her were dismissed on Dec. 30 because of a change in the legal rules that came down from the state Supreme Court. The district attorney's case against Meadows Pets, which many customers have accused of knowingly selling sick pets, is dead.

"It's heartbreaking that this happened," says Stacia Newman, director of the locally based People Against Cruelty to Animals and a vocal critic of pet stores. Many pet owners don't have the time or money to spend on pursuing individual lawsuits, she says, so this was their only hope for any kind of redress. "I had my fingers crossed the whole time. [Deputy District Attorney] Susan Krisco is a real go-getter, and she never backed down."

As Krisco tells it, District Judge Sally Loehrer dismissed the case on the heels of the Nevada Supreme Court's revised prosecution rules going into effect at the end of October. One of the new rules has to do with the principle of "foreseeable consequences." A tool for taking on aiding-and-abetting cases, the "foreseeable consequences" idea provided the legs of the deputy D.A.'s case against Meadows Pets. It argued that while in many cases Palmieri's employees sold the animals that were later found to be sick, Palmieri herself was culpable because she condoned, encouraged or was the model for their actions.

"The Supreme Court said if you have a specific-intent crime, you have to have a specific intent to misrepresent," Krisco says. "Even when [Palmieri] didn't personally sell the animals, her actions in the store, how she trained people or what employees said about her all went to my theory of foreseeable consequences." Krisco says she can refile the case, but she'd have to start from scratch, since much of the evidence against Palmieri, under the new Supreme Court rules, would be ruled prejudicial. So the prospects aren't bright.

Palmieri says the dismissal is nothing less than a vindication. "This just proves that I never did anything wrong," Palmieri says, "and that [Krisco] is just out to shut down every pet store in town." Palmieri then abruptly cut off the interview, hanging up and leaving the phone off the hook. Her attorneys, Karen Winckler and Richard Wright, declined comment as well.

Krisco counters: "This development doesn't mean she was exonerated. That's crazy. The charges were dismissed on a technicality."

Regardless, Palmieri still may get her day in court, thanks to one very pissed-off customer. Jim Barker's sick-dog story isn't different from the others who have accused Meadows Pets of selling ill animals. According to Barker, an attorney, he spent $650 on a female beagle from Meadows Pets on Dec. 16. Because of work and holiday schedules, he couldn't pick up the dog until Dec. 30. And when he did arrive to pick it up, the beagle wasn't the vivacious pup he originally laid down his money for. The dog was lethargic, with a minor cough.

"By Jan. 2, she was really wheezing," Barker says. A chest X-ray revealed that the dog had "raging pneumonia," Barker says, and his veterinarian said the dog needed to be on an IV antibiotic, rehydrated and in an oxygen cage. The catch is that Barker was bound by the contract he signed to receive veterinary care from The Ark Animal Clinic. Problem is, The Ark doesn't have an oxygen cage. Fearing the dog would die without treatment in an oxygen cage, Barker took the dog, Molly, to his own vet.

By this time, Barker was ringing in the new year with vet bills exceeding $1,000. "Judy said if I took the animal back to the Ark, they'd cover the vet bills from that point on," Barker says. "But that's a death sentence. Molly needs to be in an oxygen cage." Barker says Judy was "very apologetic" and has since sent him a check for $650, and promised to cover the rest of his emergency vet expenses, but then reneged. Now Barker--having spent more than a $1,000 on vet care--is fired up.

"At this point it's not about the money," says Barker. "I'm on a principle kick. It's a crime that other people have been screwed by [Meadows Pets], and I feel sorry for those who don't have the wherewithal to do something about it."

On Tuesday, Barker filed a nine-charge civil lawsuit against Meadows Pets for, among other things, breach of contract, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He's seeking punitive damages in excess of $10,000.

"I would've liked the criminal case to go through," he says. "It would've had bigger bite, it would've sent a stronger message. But I honestly don't think the court system scares her."