Timothy Pierson v. Hollister Police Department

CL-25-00999 Timothy Pierson v. Hollister Police Department 6-5-2026

Respondent’s motion for order requiring appellant to turn over possession of animals previously deemed dangerous.

No opposition in file.

Petitioner/Appellant: Gregory LaForge (Timothy Pierson)

Respondent/Appellee: Quentin Cedar (Hollister Police Department, City of Hollister)

This case arises from an appeal by Petitioner of the Respondent’s initial determination that Petitioner’s dogs (Bubba, Stewie) were dangerous dogs. The initial determination of November 20, 2025, determined the dogs to be dangerous and ordered the dogs euthanized, from which Petitioner appealed.

This court held a two-day trial de novo on the initial determination of the Hollister Police Department. After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence the court issued its decision on March 9, 2026. In that decision the court determined that the Petitioner’s dogs (Bubba, Stewie) were dangerous animals and ordered their humane euthanasia thirty days after the date of the court’s decision. The Petitioner appealed the decision a second time, filing the notice of appeal on March 18, 2026. That appeal is pending.

4-22-2026 Respondent’s motion for orders requiring possession of the animals previously deemed dangerous. The Respondent notes that the initial determination of November 20, 2025, from which the Petitioner appealed, was re heard on trial de novo pursuant to Food and Agriculture Code section 31622 and municipal code section 6.13.0070. The Court rendered its decision March 9, 2026, ordering that the animals were required to be humanely euthanized no later than 30 days from the service of that order, that is, April 9, 2026.

Despite that date having passed Petitioner has not turned over the animals, is withholding their whereabouts, and their present whereabouts are unknown to the Respondent. The animals are not being kept in the enclosed kennel as previously ordered by the court. (Una’dia declaration ¶¶3-6.)

Respondent moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 526,527 on the basis that first, the commission or continuance of some act during the pending appeal would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action (CCP§526(a)(2).) Second, that the party to the action is doing something or is threatening to do or is about to do or is procuring or suffering to be done some act that violates the rights of another party to the action respecting the actions’ subject matter which tends to render the judgment ineffectual. (Id. at (a)(3).) Money compensation will not afford adequate relief, and great or irreparable injury will result to the applicant without issuance of this order. (CCP§§526 (a)(4); 527(c)(1).)

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Mary Salmeron, at (831) 636-4057 x128 or msalmeron@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns

Request for Judicial Notice: Respondent requests the court take judicial notice of exhibits 1 through 3, all documents which have previously been filed with the court. 1) Petitioners first notice of appeal dated November 25, 2025; 2) the decision of the court dated March 9, 2026; and 3) a copy of Petitioner’s second notice of appeal dated March 18, 2026.

Legal Authorities and analysis: In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction the court must weigh two interconnected factors 1) the Likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and 2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or non-issuance of the injunction. (Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal. 3rd 432, 441-442.) The second factor involves consideration of things including the inadequacy of other legal remedies, the degree of the harm, and the necessity of preserving the status quo.

Here, though the appeal of the appeal is pending, the current state of affairs is that the City has prevailed in their action, and the court has determined that the dogs Bubba and Stewie pose a substantial public risk and that no alternative measures would ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the public short of their humane euthanization. Here the risk of harm to the public is noted in the decision of the court on March 9, 2026. As Officer Una’Dia’s declaration reflects, the dogs subject to the determination of the court are no longer restrained as the court had ordered previously, and their whereabouts are not known to the Respondent.

The court notes that procedurally, the trial de novo held by the court was the determination on the appeal made by the Petitioner. Pursuant to Food and Agriculture Code section 31624, “the determination of the court hearing the appeal shall be final and conclusive upon all parties.” As Respondents note, “a judgment which by the Code is made final and conclusive, is not appealable.” (Gale v. Tuolumne Cty. Water Co. (1914) 169 Cal. 46, 50. [discussing the meaning of statutory phrase ‘final and conclusive” in Code of Civil Procedure §1222].)

While the trial court will not opine on the determination of the appellate division which has yet to be made, the court notes further the purpose of a preliminary injunction is primarily to preserve the status quo pending determination on the merits. (Jamison v. Department of Transportation (2016) 4 Cal. App. 5th 356,361.) In this instance, the issue is ultimately determination of the merits of the appeal. On motion for a preliminary injunction, the judge examines all the material before the court to determine whether greater injury will result to the party opposing the injunction from granting the injunction than to the party requesting the injunction from refusing it.

In doing so the court must exercise discretion in favor of the party most likely to be injured if the injunction is granted or denied. (Take me Home Rescue v. Luri (2012) 208 Cal. App. 4th 1342, 1352-3.) The court may use a sliding scale in approach to this analysis. (New Life Sciences LLC v. Weinstock (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 676,687-8.) If there is no likelihood of prevailing on the merits, the court may not grant the injunction, regardless of the balance of

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Mary Salmeron, at (831) 636-4057 x128 or msalmeron@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns

the possible harm. The injunction may be granted if there is some possibility that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits. (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 528, 651-2.) The more likely it is that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, the less severe must be the harm the plaintiff alleges, particularly if the purpose is to maintain the status quo rather than alter it. (Integrated Dynamic Solutions v. Vita Vet Labs, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 1178, 1183; Take Me Home Rescue, supra, at 1350.)

Here the relative interim harm to the parties from the issuance or non-issuance of the injunction favors the City. Here, the court held that the two dogs presented a substantial risk to the public and that there were no alternative means sufficient short of euthanizing the dogs to assure the health, safety, and welfare of the public. (Ex 2 to RJN, pages 11-12.) While the appeal is pending the court will not order that the dogs be immediately euthanized, but to ensure public health and safety the court can and will order that the dogs be immediately turned over to animal control officers to be held by animal control pending the outcome of the appeal.

Proposed ruling:

The court grants the request for judicial notice

The court grants the preliminary injunction requested by the City. The Petitioner will turn over the two dogs identified as Bubba and Stewie to the city by no later than five p.m. on June 6, 2026. The city will hold the dogs confined pending determination on the Petitioner’s second appeal.

END OF TENTATIVE RULING

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Mary Salmeron, at (831) 636-4057 x128 or msalmeron@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns