There was a PetsMart lawsuit back in 2021. The plaintiff’s veterinarian filed the suit because she was not getting the treatment needed for her patient. Her vet had to cancel the sessions due to lack of funding and the defendant moved into defense mode, calling the plaintiff “upset” and “displeased” with the entire situation. The defendant then used words that described her as a liar and “a drama queen”, all within 8 hours ago.
The Pets Mart Lawsuit
Well, let me refresh your memory about the PetsMart lawsuit. The plaintiff’s pet was diagnosed with lung cancer, requiring a double lung transplant, which cost her over $5000. The defendant called the plaintiff “upset and upset” even though there had been several conversations regarding the finances and bills.
One day after the verdict, the defendant wound up changing their tune, stating that they had changed their minds and would allow the pet to live. How true! They have now entered into mediation phase 2, trying to settle the case through civilized negotiation. It is unknown if they will be able to settle without going to trial, but it looks like it may very well happen. So, let me ask you, where was the agreement in the PetsMart lawsuit?
Well, it appears that the answer is in an email that the defendants sent to the plaintiffs within the last hour, hours before they entered into mediation. In the email, they referred to the plaintiff as a “complete and utter fool” and “a person that does not know what she is talking about”. Can you believe that the defendants felt it necessary to use these exact words to insult the plaintiff, in the very courtroom where they were defending their business?
Can you also believe that the defendant’s answer was printed on the same day and that this statement was also posted on the company’s website?
Nowhere in the lawsuit or the emails does it state that the defendant intended to defame the plaintiff. Now, perhaps the question is should the company have warned the public before they posted those statements? Could the statement have been removed before they served the complaint? Of course, that could very well have been done. Why weren’t the defendants held in contempt of court?
Let me ask you a question, did the defendants take any action to amend the complaint after the posting of the alleged defamatory statements?
No, they didn’t. They continued to pursue their lawsuit and seek judgments in disregard of the fact that they knew their statements were untrue and that they were committing fraud, which is a federal crime. Now, you might say well, the answer to that question depends upon what they meant by the word “defamatory”. I’d say that the answer should have been, we don’t do that, but it wasn’t.
Here’s my final point, is it possible that the original lawsuit was never intended to be, and it was all hinged upon the defendant’s perceived intent to defame the plaintiff?
If this is the case, why would they file a complaint in federal court after knowing that the lawsuit was frivolous from the very beginning? It appears that the answer is, they knew they were pursuing a wrongful cause of action, but they pursued it anyway. Are you beginning to see my point here? These are all problems that are inherent in the filing of these lawsuits that are styled as “pet causes” when nothing on the record indicates that the plaintiff had a reasonable cause of action.
the plaintiff’s lawyers filed in state court because they perceived that they had a case there, and it may be worth billions but last year separated from its other businesses in preparations for the move.
You see, the truth is, the original lawsuit was for breach of contract, it was not a pet food recall, and therefore a breach of contract is irrelevant. It was a retailer’s responsibility to maintain its ingredients in good, quality condition. That’s it. The same rule applies in California, as it applies everywhere else in the country. This is not to say that the plaintiffs did not have a case here or that the defendant should not be held accountable for their actions, but that it does not matter in the end. Whether you agree with the result of the reasoning of the ruling, the reality is that the ruling will still apply tomorrow, six hours ago, and six months from now, as long as the defendant maintains service in California.
