Dog seized by original owner

[LdiJ]

Here's the latest. We are negotiating a settlement. We will never get our dog back because apparently that first hearing was the most important and we were not properly prepared. Before we considered settling, we were digging into defending ourselves and discovered some disturbing information about the breeder. They may be running an unlicensed business with the Secretary of State in PA. They own animals that you need special permits to have (they claim to live in another state yet is actually living in PA, so it is highly unlikely they are licensed). They also don't have other necessary licenses they are required to have (like from the state Dept of Agriculture.) I also have proof that they are selling puppies before 8 weeks which is illegal in PA. They are very wealthy and litigious (obviously). In the settlement papers, there will be language that will prevent either party from disparaging the other. I want to inform the proper authorities of what I've learned but my husband is scared they will sue us for doing so. Can I do it while the case is open? Is there another way to get around this? I'm having a conflict of conscience over what to do. It doesn't feel right to take the easy way out by settling and then letting their activities continue. Any advice? My attorney says that it would be suspicious to leave the language out of the paperwork and to just leave it all alone.

Sadly, you should really listen to your attorney. I understand and sympathize with why you want to expose the breeder, but your attorney apparently believes that would put you at risk, so you should not do it.

 

[quincy]

Here's the latest. We are negotiating a settlement. We will never get our dog back because apparently that first hearing was the most important and we were not properly prepared. Before we considered settling, we were digging into defending ourselves and discovered some disturbing information about the breeder. They may be running an unlicensed business with the Secretary of State in PA. They own animals that you need special permits to have (they claim to live in another state yet is actually living in PA, so it is highly unlikely they are licensed). They also don't have other necessary licenses they are required to have (like from the state Dept of Agriculture.) I also have proof that they are selling puppies before 8 weeks which is illegal in PA. They are very wealthy and litigious (obviously). In the settlement papers, there will be language that will prevent either party from disparaging the other. I want to inform the proper authorities of what I've learned but my husband is scared they will sue us for doing so. Can I do it while the case is open? Is there another way to get around this? I'm having a conflict of conscience over what to do. It doesn't feel right to take the easy way out by settling and then letting their activities continue. Any advice? My attorney says that it would be suspicious to leave the language out of the paperwork and to just leave it all alone.

Non disparagement clauses are often included in various and assorted employment contracts and settlement agreements. Despite the fact that restraining future speech is problematic, non disparagement clauses if worded properly are enforceable in Pennsylvania.

You will need to discuss with your attorney the pros and cons of agreeing to a settlement that limits your ability to speak freely about the breeder.

As a note: Only those who are parties to an agreement that includes a non disparagement clause are bound by the terms of the agreement. For example, if your daughter is not a party to the settlement with the non disparagement clause, or if your daughter is the only one of you three who is a party to the settlement with the non disparagement clause, the other or others can speak out.

Rely on your attorney. He knows the facts and can advise you accordingly. Good luck.