.jpg)
LINCOLN - The City of Randolph was ordered to stop enforcing its pitbull ordinance against a local woman and encouraged to resolve a federal court case through mediation.
Judge John Gerrard issued the latest ruling in a case brought against the City of Randolph by Candace Cooke in an effort to keep her pitbull, Rufus, in the city limits despite the city’s pitbull ordinance banning the breed.
Cooke moved to Randolph in March from Minnesota and was unable to obtain a city dog license due to Rufus’ breed. She provided documentation by the Assistance Dogs of America Registry, which lists Rufus as a boxer mix. However, Rufus’ vaccination records, signed by a licensed veterinarian, indicate his breed as pitbull and thus banned by the city ordinance established in 2015.
She appealed to the city council at its April meeting. When the council voted to keep the ban in place and disallow Cooke’s dog in city limits, she filed a civil suit in Cedar County Court, which was dismissed.
Her federal court filing seeks more than $13 million with the majority of her claim resting on emotional stress brought on by her inability to keep her dog. Doctors submitted letters upon her behalf, making the case that due to Cooke’s health diagnoses, she benefits from the use of an emotional support animal.
The city had filed for a motion to dismiss Cooke’s federal suit, but the U.S. District Court of Nebraska denied that request for several reasons outlined by Gerrard in the written ruling last week.
Gerrard cited several procedural oversights by the city’s attorneys Keelan Holloway, Randolph, and Mark Fitzgerald, Norfolk - including not directly answering Cooke’s claims and instead providing evidence outside pleadings that wasn’t properly authenticated. The city also failed to address the legal sufficiency of Cooke’s claim, including irreparable harm to Cooke and the public interest.
“The city’s failure to address these factors - again, despite being directly ordered to do so - has effectively conceded them to Cooke,” Gerrard wrote.
According to Gerrard, the only lawful claim being made by Cooke is the potential violation of the Fair Housing Act, which requires a municipality to make exceptions from its generally applicable ordinance when necessary to give a handicapped person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. A reasonable accommodation under the FHA may include an emotional support animal, he wrote.
“The City was made aware of Cooke’s alleged disability, and the City refused to accommodate Rufus,” Gerrard wrote. “There’s nothing in the record, beyond tenuous evidence of Rufus’ breed, to indicate that he’s a danger to anyone.”
In ruling for an injunction against the city enforcing the pitbull ban, Gerrard said that decision can be dissolved if additional evidence is received.
“This dispute seems like the parties should be able to work something out,” Gerrard wrote. “If Rufus is, indeed, a good dog, then this case should be settled out of court.”
Depositions were scheduled to be due in the case June 3, 2024, but no trial date was set.
