Dallas-Ft. Worth Metro Golden Retriever Club Lawsuit

3. Any phone call from BJ Elliot would have been the day our puppy was returned to us by his wife which was Wed April 13 2005.  Dr Esmond did not refer BJ Elliott to Judy as I was with him at the clinic and I stayed a bit after he left.  Judy states that she did not know BJ Elliott when in fact she had spoken to him before as you can hear in the tape when he says he called Judy Word after having called Puppy Referral and not getting a return phone call from them for 3 weeks, he found Judy’s name and number on the website.  BJ Elliott got Plaintiff’s litter information from Judy Word in February 2005 when he first contacted Plaintiffs. Anything Judy is saying with regards to Dr Esmond’s referring her name out is hearsay.  Judy is stating the wrong date of April 20 2005.   Judy had given BJ Elliott Holly’s information the day BJ Elliott returned his puppy to Plaintiffs. 

4. Again, referring to the wrong date since she states ‘later that day’ of April 20 2005…  Alan left Debra a message on April 14 2005.  Debra Allen testified at the hearing (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, pg 4) “Ok Wed evening I spoke with a Club member about her litter, she told me about a man who had just returned a puppy to the Meyer’s with serious health issues.  After I finished my call with her, I checked my messages and found a message from Alan wanting to re-list the puppy.”  This would be Wednesday, April 13 2005.  The Club member Debra Allen was talking about at that time was Holly King.  Judy Word referred BJ Elliott to Holly King when he called her for another referral.  BJ Elliott subsequently purchased his second puppy from Holly King.  Holly King’s litter was out of a dam who’s sire was Judy Word’s stud dog. Debra Allen testified at the hearing, referring to Wednesday, April 13 2005:  “Since the Club had just recently been addressing liability issues and putting um, disclaimers on our website I called Judy, told her what I knew and that Alan was now wanting to re-list the puppy and she said to hold off listing it until we could check things out and poll the Board. “   Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, page 4,  At her suggestion the next morning I sent Alan an email asking why the puppy returned, was it just an unrealistic owner or what… if it was an unrealistic owner we wanted to warn other Club members who had puppies.”   However, Plaintiff did not leave a voice mail message for Debra Allen until Thursday, April 14 2005.  Plaintiff received that email from Debra Allen on Friday, April 15 2005, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11. 

5. Again, Judy quoting the wrong date of April 21 2005.  BJ Elliott had been out to Holly King’s house and back by April 21 2005 after being referred to Holly’s litter, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, pg 3 (of which Plaintiff was not informed was on puppy referral, however the litter was out of a dam who’s sire is Judy Word’s stud dog) after returning our puppy April 13 2005.  Judy Word states numerous times that she did not ask BJ Elliott to write anything for her.  Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7, pg 4 & 8 contradicts that statement.  Judy states here that she asked him to send her an email.  Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 pg 2, 4, 8 contradicts that statement.  States since she was president of the Club, she felt it was her responsibility to protect the Club.  During that same timeframe, Judy had first hand knowledge of Dick Caldwell’s litter with undescended testicles that was listed but did not require disclosure to be given out by puppy referral.  Judy Word sold a puppy of her own breeding after another Board member volunteering for puppy referral gave out Judy’s unlisted litter and the puppy sold as a result of that referral had an undescended testicle(s).  What did happen on April 21 2005 is Judy Word contacted BJ Elliott to put into writing what he felt was wrong with Plaintiff’s puppy.  Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4  pg 12 & 13. “  Judy:  When the first discussion of the Board was?  It was when…  Alan:  Yes…   Judy:  …we received uh… it would have been Thursday, April 21^st when I spoke to BJ Elliott and received a email from him, documentation.  Saying what was wrong with the puppy.”   The fact is that Judy Word at that point in time had not yet spoken with any Board members other than Debra Allen. 

6. It would have been impossible for the Board to unanimously decide that Plaintiff’s puppy could not be listed without conditions as first, Judy told us she couldn’t reach most of the Board, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7, pg 1, and second, we have Rita Robins on tape stating that the first she even heard about our puppy and its being returned was when she returned home that weekend, Sunday April 24 2005, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10, pg 1, 15.  Therefore it was impossible for the Board to have discussed Plaintiff’s puppy before April 22 2005 let alone unanimously make any decisions.  The email received from Judy Word just after 12am which would then be Saturday April 23 2005, only stated that the Board was ‘hesitant’ and suggested that Plaintiffs have a copy of their vet report available, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 19.

7. Plaintiff did not call Judy Word until approximately 8pm Friday April 22 2005, which was after he received the information from Linda Marquart that Plaintiff’s puppy was not listed.  Plaintiff did not ask why he couldn’t get in touch with Debra Allen, he stated that he not and that she wasn’t returning his calls.  There was no mention of any witch hunt until Plaintiff mentioned that to BJ Elliott on Saturday morning, April 23 2005, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 pg 7.  Judy stated that the Board had received a complaint and/or letter from BJ Elliott and that a letter had been sent to Plaintiff’s from the Board, Exhibit 7, pg 1. 2.  Ellen said they received no letter and could Judy email it to Plaintiffs.  However, there was no way the Board could have either written a letter or be in the process of compiling a letter per Rita Robins conversation with Plaintiff, Exhibit 10, pg 15, three days later that Judy’s email of the evening of April 22 2005 Plaintiff’s Exhibit 19 was the first that she’d heard about Plaintiff’s puppy.  Judy Word stated on the morning of April 23 2005, Exhibit 7, pg 1,during phone call with Plaintiff Saturday morning:

Judy:  I have not heard back from all the Board members.

Ellen:  Okay… So are we not on right now?

Judy:  No, you are not on right now.

Ellen:  Okay… and… when… do you think you’re gonna have an answer here.

Judy:  Ellen, I really don’t know.  I’m try, I’ve called all of them, I’ve told them to pick up their emails… they’re, a lot of them are out training… I, I really don’t have an idea.

8. There were no phone calls past the 8pm phone call from Plaintiff to Judy Word on April 22 2005.  The email sent at 12:09 am on Saturday April 23 2005 did not state anything with regards to a final decision by the Board.  Judy stated that the Board was a ‘little hesitant’ to list the puppy due to potential liability.  It was ‘recommended’ that puppy referral be allowed to provide full disclosure, and it ‘might be a good idea’ to have the vet report for the volunteers, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 19.  Again, any discussions or voting by the Board via email is a violation of the Club’s Bylaws.  The Club was in breach of contact and still refusing to honor the litter listing and there was no liability to the Club as the disclaimer was on the Club website after the Club meeting on April 19 2005, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, pg 21. 

9. There was no call to BJ Elliott that night, April 22, 2005.  Plaintiffs did not speak to BJ Elliott until the following morning, Saturday, April 23 2005 at approximately 9am.  Exhibit 4 pg 1. 

10. Use Alan’s information for emails for that weekend.  Ellen asked if Plaintiff’s puppy was on due to the fact that Plaintiff told Linda Marquart that their listing should be on Puppy Referral and to check with Debra Allen.  Please see paragraph 7 above for exact quote from tape.  Bylaw violations, email not expressly allowed in Club Bylaws.

11. Plaintiffs never asked BJ Elliott to write a letter stating Judy had tricked him into anything.  Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 pg 6. BJ Elliott offered to possibly write something that he did not submit a complaint as Plaintiff is trying to remove himself from the internal conflict within the Club.

12.   Plaintiffs did not call BJ Elliott past Saturday April 23 2005.  Terry Combs did call and speak with BJ Elliott.  Please see notarized statement from Terry Combs, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 39.

13.   There were no further emails that weekend between the Board and Plaintiff between the email received early Saturday morning from Defendants, then Plaintiffs responded back at 1:07am, until the time Plaintiff’s received the next email from the Board at 8:13pm Monday, April 25 2005.  Plaintiffs responded on , at, and the final email correspondence on this issue was an email response from the Board to Plaintiffs on Wednesday April 27 2005 at 12:57pm.  Plaintiff’s Exhibit 19.

14. *15* not 14….  Judy Word would not be eligible to participate on Puppy Referral as a volunteer while she had an active listing of her 18 month old puppy, DFWMGRC Standing Rules For Puppy Referral, Section 2. Debra Allen is exhibiting negligence of her duties as puppy referral chair as Judy is quoting Debra Allen’s email of May 18, 2005 to Judy Word within this paragraph, that she ‘guesses’ Judy would have to call back the puppy referral volunteers to figure out who started listing it.,   Debra Allen was the Puppy Referral Chair at that time, it would have been her job to make sure puppy referral was running smoothly and check every week to make sure that the listings are correct.  Debra Allen would have first hand knowledge that Judy Word had an older puppy listed with puppy referral and that Judy Word would not be eligible to receive puppy referral inquiries that week.

17.   Admissions of Board discussion with regards to charges against Plaintiffs before charges were preferred against Plaintiffs.  Defendants knew at this time that on April 23 2005 Plaintiffs were told their listing was not listed and was not going to be listed without a disclosure statement by Puppy Referral.  How could Board prefer charges when Board was negligent in placing a call to the puppy referral volunteer, Linda Marquart, who Plaintiffs spoke to before they had knowledge that their listing was not on referral, Plaintiff’s told Board they had spoken with Linda Marquart before speaking with any Board members and Board knew that was the last contact Plaintiffs had with anyone on puppy referral.  Board cannot call a board meeting via email, violation of the Bylaws.  Subject matter was also not in Board’s jurisdiction as Plaintiff’s had a valid contract for their 8 week puppy referral listing that met all the requirements as stated in the Constitution and Bylaws. 

18.   Board could not have held an impromptu meeting, did not follow proper procedure for Special Board meeting and cannot do email meetings or voting.  Sherri Farmer specifically violated DFWMGRC Bylaws, Article VII, Section 2, “The Recording Secretary shall promptly send a copy of the charges to each member of the Board, and the Board shall schedule a meeting (or may instead consider them at its next regularly scheduled Board meeting) to first vote upon whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club or the Breed.”  There are no provisions in the Bylaws for ‘impromptu’ meetings, there is a specific procedure in place for such, DFWMGRC Bylaws, Article III, Section 4.  The Board, per the DFWMGRC Constitution and Bylaws cannot conduct Club or Board business via email nor vote.  Any violations of the Bylaws and procedures set forth in those Bylaws that are not followed, are null and void. 

19.   Judy Word was a witness at the hearing, yet stayed in the hearing the entire time.  She also participated in direct and cross examination of the Plaintiff and participated in all Board discussion.  Plaintiff’s knew that Judy Word would be there and also requested that she be a witness for Plaintiffs.  Plaintiff Judy Word presented Debra Allen’s case.  Letter to Plaintiffs stated specifically that neither party will be allowed legal counsel.

20.   During the same time period as Plaintiff’s contract with puppy referral, The Board of Directors were referring other Club member’s litters with potential serious health issues, undescended testicles, with one litter listed with Puppy Referral and the other not listed.  Board had first hand knowledge of those known health issues.  Yet they ignored those issues.  Board was obviously not concerned about protecting the Club when said litters were related to their own dogs.   Board did know that Plaintiffs divulged their puppy’s condition as Judy Word had a conversation with someone who inquired about Plaintiff’s litter through Plaintiff’s www.breeders.net advertisement, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7, page 6:

Ellen:  I haven’t talked to anybody except for maybe that one person whoever this person is.

Judy:  And did you talk, tell her that?

Ellen:  Huh?

Judy:  You told her it was the small umbilical hernia that was very common.

Ellen:  I said umbilical hern, that’s correct, they are common and they are repaired all the time.

Plaintiff’s puppy/litter was not unhealthy.  Puppy had an umbilical hernia with the recommendation by vet to have umbilical repair at time of neuter.  Umbilical hernia would not have affected puppy’s quality of life or lifespan.  Plaintiff, once advised of the hernia, disclosed to any inquirers that the hernia existed, that it should be repaired at time of neuter and that Plaintiff would pay the $65 quoted by their vet for the cost of the repair.  On the other hand, Defendant’s were referring to litters with puppies with potentially a much more serious surgery for undescended testicles which could be located in the puppy’s abdomen, requiring serious exploratory abdominal surgery.  There was no requirement for the litter that was listed with Puppy Referral to disclose such, and the other litter, bred by Judy Word was not listed with the Club’s Puppy Referral, yet was referred out by a Board member who was at that time fulfilling her duty as puppy referral volunteer that week giving out Judy Word’s information to an inquirer which actually led to the purchase of Judy Word’s puppy with the undescended testicle(s).    Standing Rules for Puppy Referral, Section XI states “Committee members answering the phones must refer litter listings as they were given to committee, putting aside all personal feelings”  It was the personal feelings of the Board and not a fact, that Plaintiffs were not going to disclose the umbilical hernia.  Litter listings are given to the ‘committee’ by the Breeders and that is the only way they are allowed to be referred out to by the puppy referral volunteers.

21.      Plaintiff’s did discuss via email and answered Defendants April 25 2005, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 19.  Defendants were unyielding.  Plaintiff’s already showed that they disclosed the umbilical hernia condition as Board President Judy Word (see paragraph 19 above) spoke to the same person, and Judy Word also had no right (tortuous interference) to discuss Plaintiff’s puppy with a prospective client of Plaintiff’s and since Plaintiff’s puppy was not on the Club’s Puppy Referral at that time.  Plaintiff’s never said it was ‘none of our business’ to any Board member.  The Board has no right to take a consensus on any member’s intentions and Plaintiffs already disclosed umbilical hernia to the person Judy Word tortuously interfered with. Plaintiff’s did state in their response to the Board on April 25 2005 that any and everything the Board was saying/doing was against the Club’s Bylaws.  Obviously Club’s reputation was not on the line when Board members gave out both listed and unlisted litter information containing puppies with undescended testicles which potentially require serious abdominal surgery.  Judy Word in this paragraph is on her soapbox, yet she personally committed a worse offense then what was alleged against Plaintiffs by selling a puppy from a litter not listed with puppy referral as a result of a puppy referral volunteer referral and that particular puppy that was sold had at least one undescended testicle.  Plaintiff’s followed the Club’s Bylaws and Code Of Ethics.  Judy Word did not.  Judy Word mentioning in this paragraph the GRCA’s Code Of Ethics is a farce as the DFWMGRC does not require the same ‘clearances’ as the GRCA.  If the health of the puppies is the Club’s foremost concern, why does the DFWMGRC not require the elbow clearance as does the GRCA.  Could that be because Judy Word’s stud dog at that time didn’t have an elbow clearance?  If we are THE Golden Retriever Club in this area, then we should adhere to our Club Objectives as outlined in the Constitution and Bylaws, Article I, Section 2b.and we would require that any litters to be listed on DFWMGRC Puppy Referral at the very least, meet the requirements of clearances that the GRCA requires for advertising litters in the GRCA publications.  Judy Word has served on the Club’s Bylaw Committee and neglected to recommend that the DFWMGRC meet those minimum requirements.  DFWMGRC Constitution and Bylaws, Article 1, Section 2, Club Objectives, letter B states “and additionally to follow the GRCA’s Code of Ethics regarding responsible breeding.  The GRCA Code Of Ethics, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 44, bottom of page, “GRCA members are expected to follow AKC requirements for record keeping, identification of animals, and registration procedures.  Animals selected for breeding should:  section (iii) possess the following examination reports in order to verify status concerning possible hip dysplasia, hereditary eye or cardiovascular disease, and elbow dysplasia”  Yet, the DFWMGRC does not require the elbow dysplasia report.  By not requiring that report, as stated in the GRCA Code Of Ethics, which in Article I, Section 2B of the DFWMGRC Bylaws states that the DFWMGRC Club Objective is to following the GRCA’s Code of Ethics regarding responsible breeding.  Plaintiff’s had all four of the examination reports available for both the sire and dam of their listed litter which went above and beyond the requirements for the DFWMGRC puppy referral service and did adhere to the GRCA Code Of Ethics, unlike the DFWMGRC.  The unlisted litter that was referred out by a puppy referral volunteer did not have all the GRCA recommended clearances.  The unlisted litter was sired by Judy Word’s stud dog who at that time did not have all four GRCA recommended clearances, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 45.  Yet, sire and dam of Plaintiff’s litter did. Plaintiffs did nothing ‘behind-the-back’, Plaintiffs called Judy Word and stated they had talked to Linda Marquart.  Plaintiffs were told numerous times over the next two days by Judy Word that Plaintiff’s their puppy was not on the Club’s puppy referral.  Board members and Judy Word undermined the clear objective of the DFWMGRC Puppy Referral Service and the Club, in her position of, and during her tenure of Club President by allowing litters both listed and not listed with known health issues (undescended testicles) to be referred out by the Club’s Puppy Referral Service without disclosure by the Club’s Puppy Referral as long as those litters/puppies were related to Board member’s pedigrees. There cannot be a double standard within a Club, one for Board members, and another one for other Club members, all members must be treated equally and be required to follow the DFWMGRC Constitution, Bylaws and Standing Rules.