Asteraceae Ⓥ

📣 SNUGGLES UPDATE!! -- & A MASTERCLASS IN LITIGATION TODAY IS DAY 398. FIRST a clarification of the TWO cases @ChristinaMaccio is fighting for Snuggles, and @JenniferEvn22 and WHO is involved. ➡️ ARIZONA STATE APPEAL: Jennifer Evancho v. Tucson City Court Contrary to other posts circulating out there, this case is with the Tucson City Attorney’s Office as the party in interest, (NOT PIMA COUNTY!!) and it challenges the dangerous-dog/destruction proceedings themselves. UPDATE: Snuggles’ state appeal is exactly where the action should be right now. Christina filed the opening brief, and COT is due to respond by Nov 30. Christina’s appellate brief skillfully attacks the underlying Tucson proceeding from multiple independent directions. Once COT files their reply brief, typically, Christina/Jennifer will be able to file a response to their reply brief. Updates will be coming as they occur. ➡️ FEDERAL CIVIL-RIGHTS CASE Jennifer v. the City of Tucson, Pima County and individual officials/officers. This case challenges separate constitutional conduct including Snuggles’ seizure, continued detention, due process, and related government actions. UPDATE: The judge made a ruling! And it is not what most people who read it would think. The Federal Case is Alive and Protected. 📣 Five of Jennifer’s six federal claims have been stayed and are still alive. THIS IS A MASSIVE WIN. Despite both City of Tuscon and Pima County's best efforts to have Jennifer's case dismissed (thrown out) the judge did NOT dismiss the 5 main constitutional claims. Instead, she "stayed" (paused) them. This means the claims remain pending and are stayed until the state proceedings conclude, and are actively hanging over the City and County's heads while they finish the state appeal. Now, she won't have to start these efforts later and she avoided MONTHS of the ping-pong that just occurred! Other rulings: 1. It was expected that the court would decline immediate federal intervention while the state proceedings continued and that the existing stay protected Snuggles. Not a surprise. 2. The judge dismissed the particular constitutional challenge to bond and boarding fees—not Jennifer’s damages claims generally. The damages components of the five principal counts remain preserved and the kennel and boarding fees can still be sought as damages if the unlawful-seizure claim succeeds. This was also not a surprise. DEFEATING ROOKER-FELDMAN...TWICE!—AN EXTRAORDINARY FEDERAL BENCHMARK One of COT & Pima's major arguments was Rooker-Feldman — essentially arguing that Jennifer was trying to use federal court to relitigate or overturn another court's decision/order or judgment. Just two weeks earlier, in Major’s case in Texas, Christina obtained a federal ruling recognizing that an independent federal claim can survive even when a state destruction order already exists. Rooker-Feldman has repeatedly been used to shut down federal challenges arising from state-court judgments, so having Christina defeat that jurisdictional barrier in BOTH Major’s Texas case and Snuggles’ Arizona case—within two weeks, in two different federal courts—is exceptionally significant. And it just may have helped save Snuggles. DAY 398. #SAVESNUGGLES