FORT WORTH -- The owner of two pit bulls who is suing the Fort Worth animal control department on constitutional grounds characterized an olive branch offered by city attorneys as a blackmail attempt.
"You pursue your rights, and we kill your dogs. But if you drop the case, we will let your dogs live," said Rana Soluri, the owner of Lilo and Stitch, two dogs the city declared dangerous after they had run-ins with a neighbor.A temporary restraining order and a motion for a new trial will keep city animal control officers from euthanizing the dogs in the immediate future. However, if Soluri's suit goes forward and she loses, city officials have a municipal judge's order to euthanize the dogs."I hope we can resolve this," Gerald Pruitt, deputy city attorney, said after Monday's hearing.The Soluris and their lawyer, as well as lawyers for the city, were in state District Judge Melody Wilkinson's court Monday to determine if Wilkinson has jurisdiction in the case.Soluri sued the city because she maintains that her dogs were taken, under a municipal judge's order, without due process. Also, she says, state lawmakers left people such as her no avenue to appeal decisions made in dangerous dog cases.Both city ordinance and state law state that people have a right to appeal decisions made in civil municipal court cases, Soluri's attorney, Christiana Dijkman said. But the way the Texas Legislature structured the process, appeals in civil municipal court cases, including dangerous dog rulings, go to state district criminal courts, which have no jurisdiction in civil matters.Therefore, prosecutors said, Wilkinson does not have jurisdiction to rule in this matter.But, Dijkman asked, if this court cannot rule on Soluri's appeal, which can?Legal questionsIf the Soluri family complied with a few more of the city's rules, this impasse could be resolved, one prosecutor said.The family has fulfilled some of the more difficult aspects of the municipal judge's order, Harvey Frye, an assistant city attorney trying the case, established during testimony Monday. The city has offered to accept the Soluri's house as an enclosure for the dogs, eliminating the need to build an outdoor enclosure.Also, the Soluris said they already have a $500,000 insurance policy, which exceeds the municipal court's $100,000 per animal insurance requirement.If the Soluris purchased muzzles for the dogs, kept them on a leash while they are outside, bought each a fluorescent collar and posted signs around the house warning that dangerous dogs are on the property, the family would have complied with a significant portion of the judge's order.But Dijkman said things are not that simple.Once you comply with the court order, you lose any grounds that you had to pursue the constitutional questions that gave rise to the Soluris' lawsuit, Dijkman said.Also, if the Soluris agree to comply with the municipal court ruling that labels their dogs dangerous, no city, county or apartment complex will take them as residents, Dijkman said."Once she complies she cannot go anywhere with the dogs," Dijkman said.The controversy began in late August, when the dogs broke through a fence separating the Soluris' back yard from that of her neighbor, Leslie Miller.Miller has told the Star-Telegram that she was in her back yard with her 6-month-old German shepherd puppy when Lilo and Stitch charged her, chasing her to the back door of her house. Miller said the dogs had gotten loose on other occasions so she had "had enough," and filed a complaint with Fort Worth animal control.The dogs were declared dangerous by the city, although the Soluris said they have never bitten or attacked anyone.Dijkman said she will meet with the Soluris to try to figure out which legal path to pursue.Closing arguments are set for 9 a.m. today."We think we're right, but at some point you have to weigh the risks," Dijkman said.This story contains material from Star-Telegram archives.Mitch Mitchell, 817-390-7752Twitter: @mitchmitchel3Have more to add? News tip? Tell us
