This morning at about 9:30 I heard a scratching noise at my back door. When I looked out, I saw a Doberman with a manila envelope in its mouth. As I stood there staring at it, the dog looked at me, barked once and dropped the envelope. It turned and loped away, heading towards Route 9. I waited a few minutes to make sure he didn't come back and opened the door to retrieve the envelope. Inside I found the following document.
According to my attorney, I cannot comment on it at this time, but I did want all of my readers to be aware of this lawsuit, as it may have an impact on my ability to make blog entries over the next few weeks.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Ziggy CLASS ACTION
Bella COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND
Runa Von HippleDePip
- against -
The Yarn Lady
Plaintiffs complain of the defendants and allege, upon information and belief, as follows:
1) Plaintiffs, dogs, bring this action for refusal to grant equal number of blog entries to dog pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131—2159
2) This Court has jurisdiction over the claims presented pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131—2159.
3) Plaintiffs invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this court to consider claims arising under state law.
STATEMENT AS TO PARTIES
4) Plaintiffs ZIGGY, BELLA, RUNA VON HIPPLEDEPIP AND TROY GILPIN (the “individual plaintiffs” referring to all of the foregoing) are residents of the State of New Jersey and other States or countries other than the United States.
5) Defendant The Yarn Lady is a blogger having her principal place of business located in the State of New Jersey.
6) Since on or after July of 2007 the defendant The Yarn Lady has written and published blog entries under the title of “Where's the Mommy? The adventures of the Peep and other Cat Tails” and is the sole author of the entries in this blog.
7) Since its inception the aforementioned blog has included only four (4) entries containing dogs while all one hundred and forty-seven (147) entries include cats.
8) Dogs provide companionship and entertainment to humans, both of which services are crucial to human happiness.
9) Cats are unreliable in regard to their loyalty to and companionship with humans.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT
10) The defendant, The Yarn Lady has been providing entertainment for humans with her blog entries without regard to an equal amount of inclusion of dog-focused entries.
11) Under the Animal Welfare Act this constitutes neglect of the species of animals, Canis lupus familiaris.
12) The defendant’s violations of the AWA were willful.
13) That as a result of the foregoing, the named United States plaintiffs seek judgment against the defendant on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated who file written consents to joinder in this action for parity in future blog postings, either by inclusion of dogs in all entries or by equal amounts of entries that include dogs and cats pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131—2159, together with an award of an equal amount as attorney’s fee.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF ON BEHALF OF THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED FOR VIOLATIONS OF NEW JERSEY STATUTE TITLE 4, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE 1
14) Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all allegations previously set forth.
15) Pursuant to Title 4, Chapter 22, Article 1(22)7(c) this claim for relief is brought on behalf of the named plaintiffs and on behalf of each and all other similarly situated persons who have been denied equal representation in The Yarn Lady’s blog.
16) The above described class is so numerous that joinder of all members, whether otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable in that their numbers in all likelihood substantially exceed one million, and their identities are presently unknown.
17) The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of said class.
18) The defendant’s violations of New Jersey Statutes Articles Title 4, Chapter 22, Article 1(22)7(c) were willful.
19) That as a result of the foregoing, the named plaintiffs seek judgment against the defendant on their own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated for a formal apology to the species, Canis lupus familiaris as well as an award of costs, interest, and attorney’s fees.
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.
Dated: Freehold, New Jersey
September 7, 2010