The statute -- Section 597.1 of the Penal Code -- does indeed seem to expressly grant someone who has their (allegedly neglected) animals seized the right to a prompt post-seizure hearing to contest the seizure. So when plaintiff was deprived of that right, he's got a cognizable claim. So holds the Court of Appeal.
I like post-seizure hearings; they're an essential element of due process, particularly when required by a statute. So I appreciate the Court of Appeal's reversal of the judgment below.
Nonetheless, the seizure of the allegedly neglected animals here was done by the Humane Society, and I expect (though don't know for sure) that they had a darn good reason to seize the animals that they did. I would not at all be surprised to learn that they were, in fact, neglected.
So I'm not sure that the plaintiff will recover meaningful damages (if any) at the end of the day. And if the animals were indeed neglected, I'm not confident that he should -- or that, even if he recovered them, that he should be allowed to keep them, as opposed to, say, transferring them to the animals who were abused (by, for example, giving those damages back to the Humane Society to reimburse it for the costs that they incurred in treating the injured animals).
All that will be ascertained in due course. For now, there's still a lawsuit. Albeit one that I would strongly hope would be resolved without the need for substantial additional litigation.
One can always hope.
