Lawsuit Against South Texas No-Kill Shelter After Adopted Dog Bites Child in the Face

A south Texas no-kill shelter is being accused of "dog laundering" in a civil lawsuit.

$750,000 Settlement – UPDATE 04/25/22:

Filings on the Hidalgo County website show that a full settlement was reached on January 4, 2022. Filings on April 4, 2022 show that the minor child was granted $750,000 for her injuries — three quarters of a million dollars.

Out of that sum, $30,000 was allocated to the bystander injuries of her mother, Evelyn Reyes. The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys John W. Thomas and Kurt D. Metscher of the Austin-based law firm, Thomas Williams McConnell PLLC.

The Court finds that said Compromise, Settlement, Release and Indemnity Agreement is in all things proper and just and that the same should be in all things approved.

It is therefore ordered that Defendant Palm Valley Animal Society will within five business days of the signing of this Order Approving Minor Settlement, wire the total $750,000.00 settlement proceeds… – Reyes v. Palm Valley Animal Society

The Redacted Complaint

Hidalgo County, TX – In October, a lawsuit was filed in Hidalgo County against the Palm Valley Animal Society (PVAS) located in Edinburg. The lawsuit was filed after a child was bitten in the face by a dog her family had adopted from them eight days earlier.

“They regularly adopt out dogs they know are dangerous and with bite histories to unsuspecting members of the public without disclosing the dangerous histories of the dog.”

...article continued below
- Advertisement -

The complaint is unlike any complaint we have read before, given the volume of details and allegations contained within it. The narrative reads more like a juicy manuscript, instead of a straightforward statement of facts.

Part I: Background and the Bite

On page two, the underlying allegations begin, “PVAS describes itself as ‘a lifesaving leader in south Texas dedicated to ending the killing of shelter animals in the Rio Grande Valley’ that is committed to ‘progressive lifesaving.’

PVAS covets this ‘no-kill’ status and is willing to risk the health of both people and animals to achieve it.” The complaint then quickly alleges that PVAS routinely adopts out dangerous dogs without disclosing the dangerous histories of the dog.

“Subsequent adoptions demonstrate that PVAS is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve ‘no-kill’ status. This process is called ‘dog-laundering.'”

“PVAS has undertaken a laudable goal of saving animals to an unreasonable extreme by placing a higher value on that than on public safety … READ MORE. 

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -


- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -