Dog's death leads to fraud case against four

Saddened that the stray pit bull they found in June was destroyed, a Houston couple filed a fraud suit on Nov. 15 against four individuals who allegedly had a role in circumstances that led to the dog’s death.

Jeff and Lydia Caldwell allege they were “shocked and devastated” when they learned the stray dog they found on June 1 and named Juno had been taken to Citizens for Animal Protection (CAP) on July 8 and was “killed” there on July 9.

The defendants named in the petition are Amy Walther, Shelby Kibodeaux and Bruce Padilla, all of Houston, and Natalie Bustillos of Albuquerque, N.M. The plaintiffs bring fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy causes of action against all defendants, and conversion and theft liability act causes of action against Walther.

Walther, Padilla and Bustillos did not return telephone messages. In a telephone interview, Kibodeaux says it’s true he did make up a story that Juno was adopted by Bustillos’ family in New Mexico, but only because Walther had told him she “lost the dog” and he wanted to help her “buy time” to find it.

“We did something to help a friend and now we are being sued,” Kibodeaux says. “For about two weeks, we — myself and Bruce — looked for this dog and looked and looked and could never find the dog and that’s when Amy I guess let it be known that she had brought the dog to a pound.”

As alleged in the petition in Jeff Caldwell, et al. v. Amy Walther, et al., the Caldwells found the stray dog on June 1, and they took him to a vet clinic for vaccinations and boarded him there until June 4. At that time, the Caldwells allege in the petition, they entered into a “foster arrangement” with Walther to take care of Juno while they made arrangements to find a home for Juno.

The Caldwells allege that on July 4, Lydia Caldwell notified Walther she would pick up Juno on July 11 “and retain possession until he was placed into a permanent home,” and Walther did not advise her of any issues or problems with their arrangement.

However, the plaintiffs alleged that on July 11 Walther advised Lydia Caldwell that Juno had been “adopted by a family in New Mexico.” They allege that all four defendants “engaged in an elaborate plot to deceive plaintiffs by use of email and telephone” and told them Juno had been adopted by relatives of Padilla. Also, the Caldwells allege, they were told that Bustillos was “one of the alleged adopters” and Bustillos later “contacted Plaintiffs by email from New Mexico and fraudulently asserted to Plaintiffs that she and her family adopted Juno.”

The Caldwells allege that on July 17, Kibodeaux made a written offer to return Juno to the plaintiffs for $192.50, and they accepted the offer. However, they allege Kibodeaux ceased communication with them after that and never returned Juno.

The plaintiffs allege that on July 8, Walther took Juno to CAP and “advised the staff that she could not care for Juno,” and signed paperwork acknowledging that “Juno would most likely be killed the following day.”

“CAP then killed Juno on July 9, 2012, two days before the date that Plaintiff Lydia Caldwell advised Defendant Walther that she would pick Juno up,” the plaintiffs allege in the petition.

The plaintiffs allege that for several weeks, “Defendants strung out their lies and painted a picture of Juno living in an idyllic home for 6 weeks” and the plaintiffs spent many sleepless nights and many anguished hours worrying about the fate of their defenseless puppy whose care they had entrusted to Defendant Walther.”

On Aug. 10, in response to a written demand sent by a lawyer for the Caldwells, Kibodeaux “admitted that Juno’s adoption was a made up story and claimed that he never met Juno,” and he claimed Walther “advised him that Juno had slipped out of her yard.” They allege Walther never responded to a demand for information about Juno.

However, after the plaintiffs posted flyers seeking help in finding Juno, an individual employed by CAP advised them that CAP had killed Juno on July 9, and they learned the dog had been brought in by Walther.

“Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community,” the plaintiffs allege in the petition.

Christiana Dijkman, a shareholder in Phillips ★ Akers ★ Womac in Houston, who represents the Caldwells, says, "It's not really that much about the money as making sure something like this never happens again."

-- Brenda Sapino Jeffreys

Comments

[Victoria Brooks]

I'm guessing the puppy didn't have a microchip? Because then, they should verify with the owner? Not that they would seeing as they were lying about everything else. The Caldwells might want to reach out to Tracy's Dogs in San Antonio. She runs a rescue yahoo group. There are some strange stories and things that happen in rescue, but unfortunately, it's part of the process, and everyone learns from it. How a shelter would back up the lies is beyond me, particularly with an elaborate story. I would ask, aren't they afraid to get sued but... such is the point of the story.

[Marie Johnson]

This is a sad commentary on an individual who was "fostering" a dog for a rescue group, and she should be prosecuted for her actions, it appears. However, the shelter is not to blame--it has a policy that they do not euthanize healthy, adoptable animals and this dog was not that, when brought in. It did need a foster, but all rescues and shelters know there is a dearth of fosters for animals at any given time and a shelter shouldn't be mandated to keep an animal until a foster is found, either. Defendants have supported the shelter, but that doesn't mean anything about the shelter, beyond that. As stated earlier, if CAP or any shelter or rescue, had known the truth of the story, of COURSE the rescue would have been contacted and that would have been the end of that. And FYI, CAP and other similar shelters should not be mislabeled "kill" shelters (grave misnomer). Rather, they are actually adoption centers,who were created by caring people to get dogs off the street and reduce suffering AND do adoptions. Therefore, by that definition, one cannot and should not be "forced" by any law created by a strange No Kill movement (misnomer) to take in all animals and keep indefinitely, regardless of cost or adoptability. The mislabeled "No Kill" shelters are the LIMITED adoption places. They refuse to take in the huge numbers shelters take in and tell them to go "elsewhere" . . . That reality tells the tale. They refuse to take in, what shelters more often do. CAP could have similarly refused to take in the animal, but it appears the "foster" wanted animal to be taken in, regardless of it's fate. A possible fate for an ill dog without a foster, was stated in the paper she filled out. The whole No Kill movement is not a movement to ease the suffering and reduce the reality of pet overpopulation--a FACT--they deny even exists. Let's stick to the reality of what occurred and not make EVERY single animal issue a way to go after shelters, as NK movement does. Read about who No Kill is "affiliated" with--in no stretch--and you'll see what others are seeing--smoke and mirrors and a lot of hot air, in bed with breeders and supported by the animal use industry.

[No Kill Houston]

This story is disgusting on so many levels. So many people have Juno's blood on their hands and are responsible for his death.

It should also be noted that this so-called "shelter" is not an Open Admission shelter, meaning that they can say no to intakes when they are full. They did NOT have to take Juno and they should not have taken him when they knew very well that they were going to kill him. There are so many other alternatives that they could have offered, but they didn't. They just killed Juno the next day and didn't even give him a chance at a adoption, foster care or rescue. This is totally disgusting behavior and is NOT sheltering.

This is the perfect example of why shelter laws must be changed in Texas so that the laws PROTECT animals from kill shelters and nutjob dog killers like this. Anyone could turn in an animal and lie about owning it resulting in an owned pet being killed the same day. It happens all the time. It should not be legal to kill owner surrendered animals immediately. Owner turn-ins should at least get the same amount of time as strays... for reasons such as this.

Laws like Texas CAPA would at least give these animals the same amount of time in "shelters" so that their true owners would have a shot at finding them before they are killed.

Find out more about Texas CAPA on No Kill Houston's website. http://www.nokillhouston.org/legislation/texas-capa/

[Katy Henderson]

Why didn't she just return the dog to the Caldwell's??? I would love to hear some explanation for that from Ms. Walther. I mean, why would you have the dog killed when there was another very viable option?? That's just sick.

[deb braunstein]

Although the defendants are 'affiliated with CAPS", their actions were NOT sanctioned by CAPS. If the shelter employees had known Juno had a sponsor, they would have called her to come get him. Although still a kill shelter, CAPS has still got the highest adoption rates of any Houston area shelter. Juno was a Pitt Bull mix - the hardest breed/type dog to find a home for. CAPS assesses all animals turned in to give each the best chance at adoption. They haven't "profited' from the general public's ignorance - on the contrary, like every other non-government non-profit shelter & rescue group, they are constantly in fund raising mode, and always asking for more volunteers, so that payroll can be kept to a minimum & more of the money spent on the animals. Please do NOT assume that the CAP Shelter is at fault - they were upfront about the euthanization. We all know space is limited, and while Juno should have been adoptable, there may have been just too many dogs there for him to get a chance at being adopted. That is why he was placed in a foster home. I certainly agree with the Caldwells that their suit against the 4 defendants is justified. They trusted Juno would be properly cared for. I can't think of any excuse for what the defendants did. I understand fosters get overwhelmed - we end up keeping the animals that don't get adopted, and we are all strugglung to have time & money enough for proper foster care. But turning in an animal to a kill shelter when the original rescuer is ready to take him back - cruel, stupid & senseless.

[Zizi]

I am horrified, appalled, disgusted (though never shocked by the baseness and lack of compassion displayed by certain humans) that these individuals chose to betray an innocent animal and to create a web of lies to cover their tracks. CAPS is an organization that has profited from the ignorance and lack of caring demonstrated by so many morally bankrupt individuals. It does not speak well for them and especially since they lost no time in killing this sweet dog, never even trying to find him a home. Is this the kind of orgnaizations that citizens want to support with their hard earned dollars?

[Lydia Caldwell]

Absolutely. Jeff and I wanted to get him back on July 11, 2012 and Amy Walther KNEW THIS. Why she instead chose to surrender him at CAP on July 8, 2012, signing off on paperwork explicitly stating they now would have the right to put him down, is still a mystery. And, why the other Defendants chose to create an elaborate lie is also a mystery. NONE of this had to happen. Juno SHOULD be alive today. Period.

[suzette puig]

The sad truth must be told for all to know.
Shelby Kibodeaux and Bruce Padilla and the other liars involved represented themselves as caretakers for Juno. They are affliated with CAPS. The terrible, inexcusable fact is, they betrayed a perfectly adoptable dog that had a sponsor.
Lydia and her husband never would have agreed to euthanizing Juno.(They rescued him). They would have taken him back...to safety. These people must own up to their lies. Juno's life was taken..no justification.