We are thrilled to announce that our ferret legalization lawsuit is now under the expert guidance of attorney Steven Meeks. Mr. Meeks, a seasoned professional with extensive experience, has come out of semi-retirement to take on our case as a new challenge. His dedication and expertise are exactly what we need as we navigate this important legal journey.
Our next milestone is the Case Management Conference on August 16th at the San Diego Superior Court. Both Mr. Meeks and I will be present, ready to advance our cause. Stay tuned for updates as our case progresses!
We’re building our legal binder. Click here,
Well Darn, Eric Sklar is no longer F&G President, We have to amend
Former President Eric Sklar was the original defendant. He is no longer President. I wonder if we hade anything to do with that.
The current President, Samantha Murray. Ironically she seemed sympathetic to us the last time I was at the Fish and Game Commission
In our original lawsuit we named Eric Sklar as our defendant. He was President of the Fish and Game Commission at the time. And he was the one we’ve dealt with in our appeals to the Fish and Game Commission the last several years. He was the one who scolded ferret lovers for not agreeing to pay for an Environmental Impact Report when we have been asking to do so for years. Samantha Murray is the current Fish and Game President. Ironically, the last time I was at a Fish and Game meeting in person, she was the one person who appeared to sympathize with our request that domestic ferrets not be labeled as wild by the Commission. Our original writ is being amended. I have asked our attorney (Yes, we have one!) to go over my ChatGPT written amended writ.
The Attorney General's Office Has Responded:
California Fish and Game Commission’s anticipated demurrer
- Mr. Sklar is not the proper respondent to the petition because the petition
challenges an action of the Commission and Mr. Sklar does not direct the actions of the Commission. (Sonoma County Nuclear Free Zone v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 167, 178 [a writ “may only issue against a respondent with a clear duty to perform a ministerial act and with a legal authority to discharge that duty”].) - The petition is vague and ambiguous regarding the specific actions of the
Commission that you are challenging. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(f).) - The action is barred by a statute of limitations. (Branciforte Heights, LLC v. City of Santa Cruz (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 914, 926 [“The statute of limitations applicable to a writ of mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085
depends upon the nature of the obligation sought to be enforced.”]; see generally Code Civ. Proc., §§ 312-366.3.) - The petition fails to allege that you have exhausted all your administrative remedies. (Parthemore v. Col (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1379 [“A complaint is vulnerable to demurrer on administrative exhaustion grounds when it fails to plead either that administrative remedies were exhausted or that a valid excuse exists for not exhausting.”])
Full Response to motion to demurrer,
Response to Demurrer in Wright v. Sklar Case, 37-2024-00006114-CU-MC-CTL
Dear Ms. Collins,
Please consider this my response for your demurrer on the following grounds:
Proper Respondent: In addressing the issue of the proper respondent, it’s pertinent to refer to established legal precedents. The case of Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917, 932-933 elucidates the principle that actions of a governmental entity, such as the California Fish and Game Commission, can be attributed to its officers or representatives if they are acting within their official capacity or within the scope of their authority. Mr. Sklar, as the President of the Commission, undoubtedly falls within this category, as evidenced by his direct involvement in decision-making processes related to the classification of domestic ferrets as wild animals.
I would like to direct you to this video: https://youtu.be/eY4oXl2Uq2k?si=xwI2f1NgABZyQola
Specificity of Allegations: Our petition meticulously outlines the arbitrary classification of domestic ferrets as wild animals by the California Fish and Game Commission, subjecting them to prohibition. This contention finds support in legal precedent, such as Pasadena Police Officers Ass’n v. City of Pasadena (1990) 51 Cal.3d 564, 576, which emphasizes the importance of clarity and specificity in pleading allegations.
The specific actions challenged, including the failure to conduct thorough scientific studies prior to classification, are clearly articulated, leaving no room for ambiguity.
Statute of Limitations: Regarding the statute of limitations, legal precedents such as Branciforte Heights, LLC v. City of Santa Cruz (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 914, 926 establish that the applicable statute of limitations depends on the nature of the obligation sought to be enforced. As our petition pertains to a writ of mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085, the appropriate statute of limitations should be determined accordingly. Our petition was timely filed within the applicable period, adhering to all statutory requirements.
Administrative Remedies: Contrary to assertions made by the Commission, we have diligently pursued available administrative remedies, as required by legal precedents such as Parthemore v. Col (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1379. Despite our efforts, we were informed by the Commission that such forms do not exist. This failure on the part of the Commission to provide a clear avenue for administrative relief further underscores the necessity of judicial intervention.
In light of the above, we maintain that our petition for a writ of mandate is legally sufficient. We urge the Commission to reconsider its intended demurrer, and we remain open to further discussion, ready to provide additional legal support as necessary.
Sincerely,
Patrick James Smotherman Wright
Ferret Legalization Lawsuit - Info and Updates
- Domestic ferrets are widely recognized as companion animals.
- The Commission categorized domestic ferrets as wild animals without conducting thorough scientific studies.
- Petitioner cooperated with the Commission’s requests, including funding an Environmental Report, but faced a lack of transparency and cooperation.
The Lawsuit Has Been Accepted
Case Number: 37-2024-00006114-CU-MC-CTL Date Filed: 02/01/2024
Case Title: Wright vs Sklar [IMAGED] Case Status: Pending
Case Category: Civil – Unlimited Location: Central
Case Type: Misc Complaints – Other Judicial Officer: Carolyn Caietti
Case Age: 19 days Department: C-70
03/29/2024 Email Received from opposing attorneys I was expecting further instructions from the court, but instead this helpful email came from the opposition!
03/30/2024 Per their instructions and much effort, the forms were returned.
Our Exhibits
- Exhibit A Fish and Game Code §2116
- Exhibit A2 Fish and Game Code 2116.5
- Exhibit B Proof of Domestic Status
- Exhibit C California Civil Code 655
- Exhibit D Ferret Bite Statistics
- Exhibit D2 Ferret Rabies Vaccine
- Exhibit E Original Environmental Report
- Exhibit E2 Peer Reviewed Environmental Report
- Exhibit F Legal Status of Ferrets in 48 States
- Exhibit G Lack of Feral Ferret Populations
Past Experience at the Fish and Game Commission:
August 25, 2016
Oct 9th, 2019
Feb 9th 2023
April 20th 2023