Petland Complaint

8/19/2019 Petland Complaint

1/21


2/21

2#4845-9437-1119 v8

Schottke (in his individual capacity and his official capacity as a member of the Grove City Council)

and Steven M. Bennett (in his official capacity as a member of the Grove City Council) (when

referring to conduct of the City of Grove City, the defendant city and the individual defendants in

their official capacities as members of the Grove City Council are collectively referenced herein as

“Grove City”), Plaintiff Petland, Inc. (“Petland) hereby states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This lawsuit arises as a result of Grove City and the individual defendants’ unlawful

conduct in violation of Petland’s vested rights, as well as in violation of its rights under the United

States and Ohio Constitutions regarding property, due process and a remedy for wrongdoing. Grove

City granted Petland a Special Use Permit to operate a Petland store that would offer for sale a variety

of animals, including puppies obtained from USDA licensed breeders (and kittens), and to maintain

kennel space in its store to temporarily house such animals during the sales process. Shortly after

Petland constructed a brand new company-owned pet store at Village of the Groves and began

offering puppies and kittens for sale through such store, Grove City and the individual defendants

passed an ordinance that effectively eliminates Petland’s ability to sell puppies and kittens through

such store. Grove City and the individual defendants’ reversal of position eliminates Petland’s

business model for the Grove City store and eliminates the viability of such store as a business.

Recognizing the effect of the ordinance on Petland’s business, by a split vote, the Grove City Council

included a provision in the ordinance that delays it from going into effect until January 1, 2017.

Petland is requesting expedited disposition of this case to declare Petland’s rights, implement

injunctive relief prohibiting enforcement of the ordinance against Petland in violation of its vested

and constitutional rights, award any appropriate damages, and leave time for the initiation of any

necessary appeal process in advance of the ordinance taking effect.


3/21

3#4845-9437-1119 v8

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

2. Petland is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Chillicothe, Ohio.

Petland’s business includes the ownership and operation of company-owned pet stores, as well as the

licensing of franchisees who own and operate pet stores under the Petland name throughout portions

of the United States and Canada, as well as other countries.

3. Defendant Grove City is a municipal corporation located in Franklin County, Ohio,

and is a political subdivision of the State of Ohio.

4. Defendants Laura Lanese, Ted A. Berry, Jeffrey M. Davis and Roby Schottke are

members of the Grove City Council. They are named herein in their individual capacities (for

purposes of the 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims), as well as in their official capacities as members of the City

Council.

5. Defendant Steven M. Bennett is also a member of the Grove City Council. He is

named only in his official capacity as a member of the City Council.

6. Venue is proper in this Court, because Grove City is in Franklin County, the

defendants’ conduct in Franklin County gives rise to the claims herein for relief, all or part of the

claims for relief herein arose in Franklin County, and the Petland pet store that is subject to the

ordinance at issue is located in Franklin County, Ohio.

7. After considering locating a Petland pet store in Grove City, Petland decided to pursue

the construction of a company-owned Petland pet store at Village of the Groves, 2740 London

Groveport Rd., Grove City, Ohio 43123.

8. On or about September 25, 2015, Grove City notified Petland that it needed a Special

Use Permit for its proposed Store at Village of the Groves.


4/21

4#4845-9437-1119 v8

9. By application dated September 28, 2015, Petland applied to Grove City for a Special

Use Permit. Petland paid a $100.00 required fee to Grove City, along with the submission of its

Application for a Special Use Permit.

10. On or about October 13, 2015, Grove City requested that Petland provide some

additional information to the Grove City Development Department for purposes of considering

Petland’s application for a Special Use Permit.

11. Grove City’s Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 3, 2015 addressed

the various factors considered by Grove City in connection with the request by Petland for a Special

Use Permit to operate the Petland pet store at Village of the Groves. Upon information and belief,

the Report was prepared by Grove City’s Development Department. The Report included the

following:

Project SummaryThe applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to operate a Petland store,located at 2740-2744 London Groveport Road, in the Village at the Groves

Shopping Center. The store would offer a variety of animals for sale including birds, fish, reptiles, small animals, puppies and kittens. The store will also offer pet food and goods. No boarding of animals will be conducted as part of the useand no grooming services will be offered. * * *

FactsDetailsThe applicant has indicated multiple measures taken to ensure that the proposeduse will not harm neighboring uses including the installation and use of a separateHVAC system and exhaust to control odor, temperature and humidity of theindoor kennel area. The store will also be equipped with two (2) double bowl

stainless steel sinks with disposals to handle all pet waste. The puppies will not be walked outside in the parking lots.

Code Analysis:Per Section 1135.09, the Planning Commission is responsible for reviewingSpecial Use Permit requests and recommending approval, approval withmodifications or denial to City Council based on findings of compliance with thestandards and requirements of this Code (see relevant code sections) and subjectto the conditions established by the Planning Commission to ensure compliance


5/21

5#4845-9437-1119 v8

with the letter and intent of this Code. The following is the DevelopmentDepartment’s evaluation based on code standards and requirements.

1. The proposed use shall be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the district and nearby affected districts and shall not change the essential

character of the districts;

Standard is Met: Staff does not feel that the proposed use will change theessential character of the district. The proposed pet store is located in ashopping center with other retail uses.

* * * *

3. The proposed use shall not adversely affect the health, safety, morals, or

welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood;

Standard is Met: Staff does not feel that the proposed pet shop will adverselyaffect the health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working inthe neighborhood. The store is located in a retail area and all business will beconducted within the structure, which has been design [sic] to minimize anyimpacts on adjacent uses.

* * * *

6. The proposed use shall be in accord with the general and specific objectives,

and the purpose and intent of this Zoning Code and the Land Use Plan and any other plans and ordinances of the City;

Standard is Met: The use is in accordance with the intent of applicable coderequirements and ordinances of the City.

7. The proposed use complies with the applicable specific provisions and standards of this Code;

Standard is Met: The use is in accordance with the intent of all applicablecode requirements.

* * * *

RecommendationAfter review and consideration, the Development Department recommendsPlanning Commission make a recommendation of approval to City Council for the Special Use Permit as submitted.


6/21


7/21

7#4845-9437-1119 v8

Petland will not purchase puppies from USDA licensed and inspected breeders who have been cited

for a direct violation in the previous two years. Mr. Berry stated in response to this discussion that

other pet stores in Grove City do not sell puppies or cats, and that while he has no issue with Petland

selling dry goods, he did have an issue with them selling puppies. Following the discussion, the

Grove City Council voted to approve Grove City Ordinance C90-15 granting Petland’s Special Use

Permit. Council members Davis, Bennett and Klemack-McGraw voted to approve the ordinance.

Councilman Berry voted against approval of the ordinance. By a 3-1 vote of the Grove City Council,

Ordinance C90-15 passed, granting Petland’s Special Use Permit without any modifications.

15. By email dated December 8, 2015, Petland inquired of Grove City about next steps

following approval of the Special Use Permit and also inquired about a Building Permit. Grove City

responded by email that same day, informing Petland that there was a “30 day effective period for

your special use permit after Councils’ approval. After that period is up, your use is permitted.”

Grove City also stated in the email that the building permit process was handled through Grove City’s

Building Division.

16. Petland’s Building Permit for the Village of the Groves store was approved. Petland

received an invoice from Grove City for its Building Permit on December 10, 2015. On or about

December 22, 2015, Petland paid $1048.54 to Grove City for Commercial Building Plan Review, a

state fee, a Commercial Building Permit and a Commercial Occupancy Permit.

17. The sale of puppies is a substantial part of the business of most Petland pet stores. The

typical Petland pet store obtains more than fifty percent of its revenue from the sale of puppies.

18. Petland’s business plan for its Village of the Groves pet store included the sale of

puppies. The size of the store, construction and build-out costs, lease obligation, kennel and HVAC

system, and anticipated employee staffing based upon the size of the store and its expected offerings


8/21

8#4845-9437-1119 v8

created an overhead structure that necessitated the sale of puppies to make the store a profitable and

viable business.

19. On March 7, 2016, the Grove City Council and individual defendants Lanese, Berry,

Davis and Schottke voted to enact Grove City Ordinance C-17-16, titled “Restrictions on the Sale of

Dogs and Cats in the City.” The discussion in Grove City Council meetings leading up to the passage

of Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 made clear that the intention of the Ordinance was to eliminate

Petland’s ability to purchase puppies from USDA licensed breeders and distributors – the very source

of puppies that Petland identified to Council in response to Council’s questioning regarding Petland’s

Special Use Permit application. The discussion in Grove City Council meetings leading up to the

passage of Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 also made clear that such ordinance was targeted at

Petland’s business model and was a de facto revocation and/or retroactive amendment to Petland’s

Special Use Permit and the previous approval of Petland’s business model. Indeed, Mr. Schottke had

previously voted as a Planning Commission member to recommend approval of Petland’s Special

Use Permit, and Mr. Davis had previously voted as a member of the City Council to award the Special

Use Permit to Petland.

20. Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 allows a pet store in Grove City to offer for sale only

those dogs and cats that a pet store has obtained from or displays in cooperation with an animal rescue

organization, an animal shelter or a humane society.

21. Petland’s company and franchise stores have collectively dedicated some kennel

space in the stores to the placement and adoption of shelter and rescue animals. Petland’s Adopt-A-

Pet program has placed more than 350,000 of such animals in new homes. Petland planned to devote

some portion of its kennel space in the Grove City store for display in furtherance of the placement

of shelter or rescue animals. However, Petland’s effort to place such animals is typically a humane


9/21

9#4845-9437-1119 v8

gesture made possible by the profitable operation of the stores in question. Petland’s business model

does not permit most of its pet stores to profitably operate without selling purebred and designer breed

puppies that the consumer market desires. Shelter and rescue animals are typically not puppies, are

typically not purebred, have a higher than average incidence of health and behavioral problems, and

are often difficult to obtain from a consistent and reliable source. Publicly available data confirms

that shelter and rescue dog populations are overwhelmingly comprised of pit bulls rejected by their

owners – a type of dog that Petland does not sell.

22. Petland’s business model cannot profitably operate the Village of the Groves store in

conformance with Grove City Ordinance C-17-16. Petland communicated this fact to the Grove City

Council prior to the enactment of Ordinance C-17-16. The response from Council member Lanese

was that the grace period prior to enforcement of the newly enacted ordinance should be reduced in

light of the fact that Petland had acknowledged that it could not continue the operation of the Village

of the Groves store in compliance with the ordinance and would have to close the store.

23. Grove City’s Ordinance C-17-16 amounts to an unconstitutional abrogation of

Petland’s vested rights and a retroactive unconstitutional regulatory taking of Petland’s property,

destroying Petland’s reasonable, investment-backed expectations regarding such property. In

addition, Ordinance C-17-16 does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, and the

purported bases for the ordinance lack a substantial relationship with the public, health, safety and

welfare of the community.

COUNT ONE

(Impairment And/Or Abrogation Of Petland’s Vested Rights)

24. Petland restates and hereby incorporates the prior allegations as if fully rewritten

herein.


10/21

10#4845-9437-1119 v8

25. Petland acquired a property interest in the Village of the Groves site. In connection

with its contemplated use of the property, Petland obtained a Special Use Permit to operate its pet

store at the site, including the right to sell puppies obtained from USDA licensed breeders. Following

receipt of the Special Use Permit, Petland made a substantial investment in improvements through

the build-out of the store located at the Village of the Groves site. This investment in improvements

was in excess of one hundred seventy thousand dollars.

26. After Petland made a substantial investment in the pet store located at the Village of

the Groves site, Grove City, through the vote of the Grove City Council, enacted Ordinance C-17-16.

This Ordinance eliminated Petland’s legal ability to obtain puppies from USDA licensed breeders

(making it a crime) and severely restricted the legal sources of dogs permitted to be sold in Petland’s

Village of the Groves store. The legally permitted sources for puppies under the Ordinance that are

located in the Grove City area are unwilling and/or legally unable to supply dogs to Petland, and such

sources do not comport with the type (age, breed, pedigree, price point) of dogs that Petland intended

to sell from the Village of the Groves pet store.

27. Based upon Grove City’s grant of a Special Use Permit, Petland changed position,

expended substantial time, effort, and money, and incurred significant obligations. Petland did these

things in reliance upon the vested rights granted to it by the Special Use Permit and other approvals

of Grove City regarding the operation of the Village of the Groves pet store and the permitted sale of

puppies from USDA licensed and inspected breeders.

28. Petland reasonably relied upon Grove City’s express grant of a Special Use Permit

and its further grant of a Building Permit in proceeding with its investment in the Village of the Groves

site and the execution of its business plan with respect to such pet store.


11/21

11#4845-9437-1119 v8

29. Petland’s vested property rights in the Village of the Groves pet store and in Grove

City’s authorization of the pet store and its business model, including the rights granted by the Special

Use Permit and other approvals of by the city to operate the pet store and sell puppies obtained from

USDA licensed breeders, are constitutionally protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution and by Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Petland has

obtained vested rights in the use of the property in question for purposes of operating a pet store that

sells puppies obtained from USDA licensed breeders, and the passage of Grove City Ordinance C-

17-16 and the defendants’ threatened enforcement of such ordinance to restrict or prohibit such use

deprive Petland of its vested rights. Petland’s vested rights include not only its permitted use, but also

the leasehold interest and interest in real property improvements, as well as the property interest in

the business itself and Petland’s reasonable investment-backed expectations with respect to such

business.

30. Without the relief requested herein, the enforcement of Grove City Ordinance C-17-

16 will cause Petland irreparable harm by destroying the business viability of its pet store at the

Village of the Groves location and by causing damage and other reputational harm to Petland,

including the loss of customers, loss of reputation and loss of goodwill. The relief requested is set

forth more fully below, but includes, without limitation, an injunction preventing enforcement of

Ordinance C-17-16 as to the Petland Village of the Groves pet store in violation of Petland’s vested

rights and a declaration that the ordinance is unconstitutional as a result of its violation of Petland’s

vested rights.

COUNT TWO

(Violation of Petland’s Rights Guaranteed By The United States And Ohio Constitutions,

Including Property Rights, Due Process Rights And Right To A Remedy For Wrongdoing)


12/21

12#4845-9437-1119 v8


herein.

32. Petland acquired a property interest in the Village of the Groves site. In connection

with its contemplated use of the property, Petland obtained a Special Use Permit to operate its pet

store at the site, including the right to sell puppies obtained from USDA licensed breeders. Following

receipt of the Special Use Permit, Petland made a substantial investment in the build-out of the store

located at the Village of the Groves site, including improvements to the property that are specific to

the contemplated sale of puppies such as the construction of kennels, an HVAC system designed for

kennel use, and custom petting stations that allow customers to visit with puppies and kittens in the

store in connection with their potential purchase of such animals. Moreover, the size of the space and

the overall profitability of the business model for the Village of the Groves store are dependent upon

the sale of “purebred” and “designer breed” puppies desired by the consumer market.

33. After Petland made a substantial investment in the pet store located at the Village of

the Groves site, Grove City and individual defendants Lanese, Berry, Davis and Schottke voted to

enact Grove City Ordinance C-17-16. This Ordinance eliminated Petland’s legal ability to obtain

puppies from USDA licensed breeders and severely restricted the legal sources of dogs permitted to

be sold in Petland’s Village of the Groves store. The legally permitted sources for puppies under the

Ordinance that are located in the Grove City area are unwilling and/or legally unable to supply dogs

to Petland, and such sources do not comport with the type of dogs that Petland intended to sell from

the Village of the Groves pet store.

34. The passage of Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 and the defendants’ threatened

enforcement of such ordinance constitute a taking of Petland’s property interest in the Village of the

Groves Petland pet store, including the leasehold interest, as well as its interest in the improvements


13/21

13#4845-9437-1119 v8

and the business itself. Before voting to enact Ordinance C-17-16, Grove City Council member Davis

called the Council’s attention to the “real live investment” that Petland had made in the Village of the

Groves store. Nevertheless, he and three other Council members (Lanese, Schottke and Berry) voted

in favor of Ordinance C-17-16, thereby destroying a fundamental attribute of Petland’s ownership

interest in the property by denying Petland the right to sell puppies purchased from USDA licensed

breeders in its Village of the Groves store. Grove City’s governmental action in enacting the

ordinance thereby also deprived Petland of all economically viable uses of its property interests

(including the lease and improvements to the property) by denying Petland the ability to profitably

operate the Village of the Groves store, as well as the ability to utilize the leasehold interest.

35. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section

19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution guarantee that private property rights shall not be taken for

public use without just compensation.

36. In addition, Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 does not substantially advance legitimate

state interests. Although the Grove City Council members who voted for the ordinance referenced

varying reasons for its enactment, it was in reality an ineffective, feel-good restriction passed for

political purposes at the request of certain Council members. For example, Council member Lanese

claimed a desire to protect consumers, while acknowledging that dogs from the sources permitted by

the Ordinance (shelters, “rescue organizations” and “humane societies”) would be more likely to have

congenital defects and behavioral problems. She stated in support of the ordinance that at least

consumers would know that they are more likely to purchase a bad dog if they know if comes from a

shelter, “rescue,” or “humane society,” as contrasted with pet store consumers who (according to her)

may be unaware of the origin of their puppy and could possibly end up with a dog that becomes sick

or has a congenital condition. Such a rationale is illogical and fails to advance any legitimate state


14/21

14#4845-9437-1119 v8

interests. Other reasons offered in the ordinance itself also fail to advance any legitimate state

interests. For example, any suggestion that commercial breeders will be impacted by an ordinance

aimed at pet stores is not supported by any rational, credible evidence. Animal rights groups concede

that pet stores (all pet stores in the aggregate, not just Petland) sell less than two percent of the puppies

sold in the United States. Yet, Grove City’s Ordinance C-17-16 targets the single pet store that

operates within the municipality and does nothing to regulate breeders. Though the purported purpose

of the ordinance is to undermine commercial breeders, the terms of the ordinance permit city residents

to purchase dogs directly from commercial breeders – even unlicensed breeders. Similarly, any

suggestion that overcrowding in animal shelters can be reduced by limiting the source of dogs sold

by Petland is equally unsupportable. Consumers who purchase puppies from Petland purchase higher

quality, “purebred” or “designer breed” puppies and pay retail prices that are commensurate with the

quality of such animals. Statistics show that the percentage of such dogs that are abandoned or turned

over to animal shelters is de minimis. By contrast, dogs that are acquired from animal shelters and

rescues are more likely to have behavioral and genetic problems and are much more likely to find

their way back to an animal shelter even after subsequent owners purchase or adopt them. Finally,

forcing Petland to sell dogs obtained from shelters and rescues will not reduce the dog populations in

such facilities, because Petland cannot operate under such a model at the Village of the Groves store,

and the shelters and rescues in the Grove City area either refuse to sell dogs to Petland and/or are not

lawfully licensed to do so.

37. Grove City’s Council meetings failed to provide a reliable mechanism for receiving

and reviewing credible factual information upon which to base a decision regarding legitimate state

interests in the context of Ordinance C-17-16. No cross-examination was permitted, and the persons

who spoke during the Council meetings were permitted to make statements without any foundation


15/21

15#4845-9437-1119 v8

or personal knowledge. The idea for the ordinance originated with an animal rights organization, and,

after they were approached, several Grove City Council members took up the cause. The Council

meetings were a showcase for political grandstanding during which one of the ordinance’s primary

proponents, Council member Lanese, declared that dogs were “living, breathing, human beings”

before voting in favor of the ordinance. Petland was denied the requisite due process required of such

a proceeding that retroactively eliminated its property rights, including its investment-backed

expectations for its business.

38. The elimination of such property rights has caused substantial harm and damage to

Petland, including immediate irreparable harm that is difficult to quantify. The relief requested is set

forth more fully below, but includes, without limitation, the request for an injunction preventing the

unconstitutional taking of Petland’s property interests through the enforcement of Ordinance C-17-

16 and a declaration that such ordinance is unconstitutional because it operates to deprive Petland of

its property interests without due process of law.

COUNT THREE

(42 U.S.C. §1983)


herein.

40. Defendant Grove City and the individual City Council member defendants who voted

for the ordinance acted under the color of state law when they enacted Grove City Ordinance C-17-

16.

41. Defendant Grove City and City Council members Lanese, Berry, Davis and

Schottke’s conduct in enacting C-17-16 deprived Petland of its vested and constitutionally protected

property rights in the improvements to, and use of, the property interests in its pet store and business

located at Village of the Groves. Such conduct deprived Petland of the very rights that had been


16/21

16#4845-9437-1119 v8

granted to it through the issuance of the Special Use Permit, Building Permit and approval of Petland’s

business model in place at the Village of the Groves pet store. Defendants Grove City, Lanese, Berry,

Davis and Schottke’s deprivation of Petland’s rights was conducted without due process of law.

Further, the conduct of individual defendants Lanese, Berry, Davis and Schottke specifically targeted

Petland for unlawful political purposes and/or for unlawful purposes based upon personal emotional

positions, rather than on the basis of any legitimate public interest or purpose that was reasonably

supported by established evidence.

42. Defendant Grove City and the individual City Council members’ conduct as described

herein violated 42 U.S.C. §1983 through the deprivation of Petland’s rights under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

COUNT FOUR

(Inverse Condemnation / Mandamus)


herein.

44. In the event that the Court does not issue a declaration and/or injunctive relief

rendering Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 inapplicable or unenforceable with respect to Petland as a

result of Petland’s previously vested rights in the Village of the Groves pet store; or in the event that

the Court does not invalidate Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 as a result of defendants’ violation of

Petland’s rights pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,

42 U.S.C. §1983, and Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution; then Petland requests a writ of

mandamus from the Court compelling Grove City to initiate appropriation proceedings with respect

to Petland’s property rights and provide the appropriate compensation for the denial of such rights.

45. If the other relief requested herein is not granted, then Petland submits that: (a) it will

have a clear legal right to compel Grove City to commence an appropriation action; (b) there will be


17/21

17#4845-9437-1119 v8

a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of Grove City to institute such action; and (c) there will

be a lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

46. As to Petland’s clear legal right and Grove City’s clear legal duty referenced above,

such right and duty emanate from the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution and Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, all of which guarantee that private

property rights shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. As explained above,

defendants’ enactment and threatened enforcement of Ordinance C-17-16: (a) destroyed a

fundamental attribute of Petland’s ownership interest in the Village of the Groves pet store property

(such property interests include not only the leasehold interest and interest in real property

improvements, but also the property interest in the business itself and Petland’s reasonable

investment-backed expectations with respect to such business); (b) deprived Petland of all

economically viable uses of its interests in such property by eliminating a primary source of revenue

for the store and its ability to operate profitably; and (c) failed to substantially advance legitimate state

interests, because any reasons offered by the defendants for the enactment of the ordinance were

unsupported by the evidence and not tailored to realistically accomplish the purported objectives of

the ordinance.

47. Petland has and will continue to incur substantial damages as a result of the enactment

of Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 and any enforcement of such ordinance.

COUNT FIVE(Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 Is Void For Vagueness)


herein.

49. Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 is void for vagueness, thereby constituting a denial of

due process under the United States and Ohio Constitutions.


18/21

18#4845-9437-1119 v8

50. Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 purports to regulate the sources from which a pet store

is permitted to obtain dogs and cats. The three permitted sources in Section 1(b)(1) of the ordinance

are: “(A) An Animal Rescue; (B) An Animal Shelter; and/or (C) Humane Society.” With respect to

the three identified permitted sources, only one is defined. “Humane Society” is defined in Section

1(a)(5) of the ordinance. The ordinance also includes a definition of “Animal Rescue for Dogs” in

Section 1(a)(1) and of “Animal Shelter for Dogs” in Section 1(a)(2). These defined terms, however

use different terminology from that used to identify the permitted sources under Section (1)(b)(1).

Indeed, the definitions in Section 1(a) are even more confusing when considered in the context of the

restrictions in Section 1(b) stating that they apply to both dogs and cats – a concept entirely at odds

with the definitions of “Animal Rescue for Dogs” and “Animal Shelter for Dogs” set forth in Section

1(a) of the ordinance.

51. Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 also purports to be a criminal ordinance, and it states

in Section 1(d) that “[a] violation of this Section shall constitute a misdemeanor in the fourth degree.”

52. Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 is vague and ambiguous as a result of having either

undefined terms or defined terms that are not correspondingly used in the substantive section of the

ordinance. As a result, prohibitions are not clearly defined, and the ordinance invites arbitrary and/or

discriminatory enforcement.

53. As a consequence, Petland faces the consequence and stigma of potential criminal

enforcement and punishment for violation of an ordinance that, because it is vague and ambiguous,

prevents a potential offender from knowing the nature of the conduct that will constitute a violation

of the ordinance.


19/21

19#4845-9437-1119 v8

WHEREFORE, Petland demands judgment as follows:

(1) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Grove City from enforcing

Ordinance #C-17-16 against Petland and its pet store located at Village of the Groves, 2740 London

Groveport Rd., Grove City, Ohio 43123 in violation of Petland’s vested rights;

(2) A declaratory judgment declaring Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 unlawful,

unconstitutional under the United States and Ohio Constitutions, and unenforceable;

(3) A declaratory judgment declaring that Grove City Ordinance C-17-16 is void for

vagueness pursuant to Count Five above;

(4) Compensatory and consequential damages pursuant to Article I, Section 16 of the

Ohio Constitution, or as otherwise permitted by law, in an amount to be determined at trial;

(5) Compensatory, consequential and punitive damages against defendants Lanese,

Berry, Davis and Schottke for violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983;

(6) An award of Petland’s attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in this action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. §1988;

(7) In the alternative, a writ of mandamus pursuant to Count Four compelling Grove City

to initiate appropriation proceedings with respect to the regulatory taking of Petland’s property rights

and to provide the appropriate compensation for the denial of such rights.

(8) An award of costs and expenses incurred herein;

(9) Interest on any monetary award; and,

(10) Such other and further equitable relief as may be proper.


20/21

20#4845-9437-1119 v8

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Robert G. Cohen_________________

Robert G. Cohen (0041707)Email: [email protected] G. Schuler (0039258)Email: [email protected], BROWN, HILL & RITTER CO., L.P.A.65 East State Street, Suite 1800Columbus, OH 43215Telephone: (614) 462-5400Telecopier: (614) 464-2634

Attorneys for Plaintiff Petland, Inc.

JURY DEMAND ENDORSEMENT

Plaintiff hereby submits its demand for a trial by jury on all issues so triable, said jury to

be comprised of the maximum number of jurors allowable by law.

/s/ Robert G. Cohen_________________ Robert G. Cohen (0041707)


21/21

21#4845-9437-1119 v8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and accurate copy of the foregoing Complaint is being served by regular U.S. mail

and email, upon the City Attorney for Grove City, Stephen J. Smith, Esq., Frost Brown Todd LLC,

One Columbus, Suite 2300, 10 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215-3484

([email protected]), this 23rd day of March, 2016.

/s/ Robert G. CohenRobert G. Cohen

Documents

Petland Complaint