The Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed a lawsuit from World Heritage Animal Genomic Resources (WHAGR) claiming that the defendants did not disclose issues with the land it leased from them, including salmonella and a dangerous dog. The memorandum and order filed on Friday dismissed the case without prejudice “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Judge Danny C. Reeves said that the only “purported federal claim” in the complaint did not “‘arise under’ federal law,” because of this, the court dismissed the lawsuit. He argued that a federal law issue needs to be brought with more than “anticipation of a defense,” and said the plaintiff “mischaracterizes the nature of its action.”
The complaint, which was filed on July 31 against Alton H. Stull, Sr. and other members of the Stull family, claimed that cow carcasses left by the defendants on the farm led to sickness and deaths among the plaintiff’s animals. It also alleged that a dog owned by the defendants killed some livestock. WHAGR preserves rare animals and promotes their breeding, including using genetic storage. The plaintiff asked for damages and injunctive relief, as well as an injunction to keep them from being evicted.
The defendants alleged that WHAGR was behind on its rent payments and are attempting to evict the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs said their rent is current and that they cannot move the animals while they are contaminated with the disease under the Animal Health Protection Act.
The order dismissing the lawsuit said it is true that transportation across state lines is prevented by law, but stated that “such movement would only occur … if WHAGR were evicted, which means the Act would only be implicated if state law did not entitle WHAGR to relief.” Thus, the federal question in the complaint is only raised based on one of the answers to the questions in state law.
