Case Details

Animal exhibitor charged under AWA
Sarasota, FL (US)

Incident Date: Thursday, Dec 31, 1998
County: Sarasota
Local Map: available
Disposition: USDA Citation

Person of Interest: Emilia S Zerbini

Case ID: 6485
Classification: Unlawful Trade/Smuggling, Neglect / Abandonment
Animal: dog (non pit-bull)
View more cases in FL (US)
Login to Watch this Case

In April 2001, unlicensed animal exhibitor Emilia Zerbini of Maya and Her French Poodles in Sarasota, Fla. engaged in regulated activities without a license on numerous occasions and committed violations in the areas of veterinary care, housing, transportation, and sanitation.

EMILA W. ZERBINI, AN INDIVIDUAL d/b/a MAYA AND HER FRENCH POODLES, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP.
AWA Docket No. 01-0031
Filed November 8, 2001.
AWA � Default � Failure to answer.

On April 25, 2001, the Hearing Clerk sent to the respondent, by certified mail, copies of the complaint and the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act. The packages were mailed to the respondent�s current mailing address, which respondent had provided to complainant. The respondent was informed in the accompanying letter of service that an answer should be filed pursuant to the Rules of Practice and that failure to answer any allegation in the complaint would constitute an admission of that allegation. Respondent actually received the complaint on May 4, 2001.

Respondent failed to file an answer within the time prescribed in the Rules of Practice, and the material facts alleged in the complaint, which are all admitted by the respondent�s failure to file an answer, are adopted and set forth herein as Findings of Fact.

Emilia W. Zerbini is an individual whose mailing address is 2311 Juniper Place, Sarasota, Florida 34329. At all times material hereto, said respondent was engaged in business as Maya and Her French Poodles, a sole proprietorship located at the same mailing address, and was operating as an exhibitor as that term is defined in the Act.

Respondent Emilia W. Zerbini was previously issued Animal Welfare Act license 58-C-488, which license was terminated on December 4, 1998, after respondent failed to submit a license renewal form.

On May 5, 6 and 7, 2000, at Wilmington, Delaware, respondent Emilia W. Zerbini, doing business as Maya and Her French Poodles, operated as an �exhibitor� for Hamid Circus Royale, Northfield, New Jersey, as that term is defined in the Regulations, without having obtained a license from the Secretary to do so.

On November 23, 1999, APHIS inspected respondent�s animals, records and mobile or traveling housing facilities, and found that respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included employment of an attending veterinarian, and regularly scheduled visits.

On November 23, 1999, APHIS inspected respondent�s animals, records and mobile or traveling housing facilities, and found that respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease, and specifically, respondent failed to administer a heartworm preventative to her animals regularly, as prescribed in veterinary care program, and retained in use veterinary medication (pyrantel pamoate) that expired in 1997.

On November 23, 1999, APHIS inspected respondent�s animals, records and mobile or traveling housing facilities, and found that respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included a mechanism of direct and frequent communication with the attending veterinarian on matters of animal health.

On November 23, 1999, APHIS inspected respondent�s housing facilities for dogs, and found that respondent failed to comply with the requirements for indoor, sheltered, and mobile or traveling housing facilities:

a. Respondents failed to provide sufficient ventilation in housing facilities for dogs, to provide for the health and well-being of dogs and to minimize odors and ammonia levels; and

b. Respondents failed to ensure that housing facilities for dogs were lighted well enough to permit inspection, and observation of the dogs housed therein.

On November 23, 1999, APHIS inspected respondent�s facility and animals, and found that respondent failed to comply with the general requirements for housing dogs:

a. Respondent housed at least one dog (Brandy) in an enclosure that did not provide the animal with sufficient floor space; and

b. Respondent housed dogs in a primary enclosure that was not constructed and maintained so as to contain the dogs securely, and specifically, the enclosure was constructed in such a way as to allow a dog contained therein to stick its head and neck outside of the enclosure.

On May 19, 2000, APHIS inspected respondent�s animals, records and mobile or traveling housing facilities and animals, and found that respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included employment of an attending veterinarian, and regularly scheduled visits.

On May 19, 2000, APHIS inspected respondent�s animals, records and mobile or traveling housing facilities, and found that respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease, and specifically, respondent failed to administer a heartworm preventative to her animals regularly, as prescribed in veterinary care program.

On May 19, 2000, APHIS inspected respondent�s animals, records and mobile or traveling housing facilities, and found that respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease, and specifically, respondent failed to have dogs wormed quarterly, as prescribed in veterinary care program.

On May 19, 2000, APHIS inspected respondent�s animals, records and mobile or traveling housing facilities, and found that respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease, and specifically, respondent failed to have fecal tests performed quarterly.

On May 19, 2000, APHIS inspected respondent�s animals, records and mobile or traveling housing facilities, and found that respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease, and specifically, respondent failed to have attending veterinarian examine skin growth on one dog (Dolly).

On May 19, 2000, APHIS inspected respondent�s animals, records and mobile or traveling housing facilities, and found that respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease and injuries, and specifically, respondent failed to have animals� nails trimmed.

On May 19, 2000, APHIS inspected respondent�s animals, records and mobile or traveling housing facilities, and found that respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease, and specifically, respondent failed to have arthritic puppy treated by attending veterinarian.

On May 19, 2000, APHIS inspected respondent�s animals, records and housing facilities, and found that respondent failed to comply with the requirements for indoor, sheltered, and mobile or traveling housing facilities:

a. Respondents failed to provide sufficient ventilation in housing facilities for dogs, to provide for the health and well-being of dogs and to minimize odors and ammonia levels; and

b. Respondents failed to ensure that housing facilities for dogs were lighted well enough to permit inspection, and observation of the dogs housed therein.

On May 19, 2000, APHIS inspected respondent�s animals, records and mobile or traveling housing facilities, and found that respondent failed to comply with the housing requirements for dogs:

a. Respondent housed at least one dog (Dolly) in an enclosure that did not provide the animal with sufficient space.

On May 19, 2000, APHIS inspected respondent�s animals, records and mobile or traveling housing facilities, and found that respondent failed to comply with the primary conveyance requirements:

a. Respondent failed to maintain the interior of the animal cargo space clean; and

b. Respondent failed to construct and maintain the animal cargo space in a manner that protects the health and well-being of the animals at all times, and ensures their safety and comfort.

On May 19, 2001, APHIS inspected respondent�s records, and found that respondent failed to make, keep and maintain full and correct records concerning each dog acquired by respondent.

On forty-three dates between January 28, 1999, and May 21, 2000, respondent Emilia W. Zerbini, doing business as Maya and Her French Poodles, operated as an �exhibitor� for Circus Maximus, Inc., in thirteen locations without having obtained a license from the Secretary to do so.

On fifty-seven dates between February 5, 2000, and April 30, 2000, respondent Emilia W. Zerbini, doing business as Maya and Her French Poodles, operated as an �exhibitor� for Yankee Doodle Circus, without having obtained a license from the Secretary to do so..

On May 5, 6 and 7, 2000, respondent Emilia W. Zerbini, doing business as Maya and Her French Poodles, operated as an �exhibitor� for Hamid Circus Royale, without having obtained a license from the Secretary to do so.

On November 23, 1999, respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included employment of an attending veterinarian, and regularly scheduled visits.

On November 23, 1999, respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease, and specifically, respondent failed to administer a heartworm preventative to her animals regularly, as prescribed in veterinary care program, and retained in use veterinary medication (pyrantel pamoate) that expired in 1997.

On November 23, 1999, respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included a mechanism of direct and frequent communication with the attending veterinarian on matters of animal health.

On November 23, 1999, respondent failed to provide sufficient ventilation in housing facilities for dogs, to provide for the health and well-being of dogs and to minimize odors and ammonia levels.

On November 23, 1999, respondent failed to ensure that housing facilities for dogs were lighted well enough to permit inspection, and observation of the dogs housed therein.

On November 23, 1999, respondent housed at least one dog (Brandy) in an enclosure that did not provide the animal with sufficient floor space.

On November 23, 1999, respondent housed dogs in a primary enclosure that was not constructed and maintained so as to contain the dogs securely, and specifically, the enclosure was constructed in such a way as to allow a dog contained therein to stick its head and neck outside of the enclosure.

On May 19, 2000, respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included employment of an attending veterinarian, and regularly scheduled visits.

On May 19, 2000, respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease, and specifically, respondent failed to administer a heartworm preventative to her animals regularly, as prescribed in veterinary care program.

On May 19, 2000, respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease, and specifically, respondent failed to have dogs wormed quarterly, as prescribed in veterinary care program.

On May 19, 2000, respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease, and specifically, respondent failed to have fecal tests performed quarterly.

On May 19, 2000, respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease, and specifically, respondent failed to have attending veterinarian examine skin growth on one dog (Dolly).

On May 19, 2000, respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease and injuries, and specifically, respondent failed to have animals� nails trimmed.

On May 19, 2000, respondent failed to maintain an adequate program of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and control disease, and specifically, respondent failed to have arthritic puppy treated by attending veterinarian.

On May 19, 2000, respondent failed to provide sufficient ventilation in housing facilities for dogs, to provide for the health and well-being of dogs and to minimize odors and ammonia levels.

On May 19, 2000, respondent failed to ensure that housing facilities for dogs were lighted well enough to permit inspection, and observation of the dogs housed therein.

On May 19, 2000, respondent housed at least one dog (Dolly) in an enclosure that did not provide the animal with sufficient space.

On May 19, 2000, respondent failed to maintain the interior of animal cargo space clean.

On May 19, 2000, respondent failed to construct and maintain animal cargo space in a manner that protects the health and well-being of the animals at all times, and ensures their safety and comfort.

On May 19, 2001, respondent failed to make, keep and maintain full and correct acquisition records concerning each dog.

ORDER

Respondent, her agents and employees, successors and assigns, directly or through any corporate or other device, shall cease and desist from violating the Act and the Regulations and Standards.

Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of $8,250.

Respondent�s animal welfare license (number 58-C-488) is revoked.

The provisions of this order shall become effective on the first day after this decision becomes final. This decision becomes final without further proceedings 35 days after service as provided in sections 1.142 and 1.145 of the Rules of Practice. Copies of this decision shall be served upon the parties.

[This Decision and Order became final June 19, 2002.-Editor]

Neighborhood Map

For more information about the Interactive Animal Cruelty Maps, see the map notes.

Back to Top

Add this case to:   Del.icio.us | Digg | Furl Furl |

References

Docket 01 0031 - November 8, 2001

« FL State Animal Cruelty Map

Add to GoogleNot sure what these icons mean? Click here.

Note: Classifications and other fields should not be used to determine what specific charges the suspect is facing or was convicted of - they are for research and statistical purposes only. The case report and subsequent updates outline the specific charges. Charges referenced in the original case report may be modified throughout the course of the investigation or trial, so case updates, when available, should always be considered the most accurate reflection of charges.

For more information regarding classifications and usage of this database, please visit the database notes and disclaimer.



Send this page to a friend
© Copyright 2001-2007 Pet-Abuse.Com. All rights reserved. Site Map ¤ Disclaimer ¤ Privacy Policy