Service dog
MIAMI – A proposed class action accuses a Florida-based company of false advertising and consumer fraud for selling legally invalid documentation pertaining to emotional support and service animals.
The lawsuit, filed last month in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, takes issue with defendant Support Pets LLC’s Emotional Support Animal, or ESA, and Psychiatric Service Dog, or PSD, documentation.
“Defendant Support Pets, LLC (‘Support Pets’ or ‘Defendant’) represented to pet owners that Support Pets products grant owners legal permission to take their pets almost anywhere,” the 21-page complaint states.
“It lied.”
Plaintiff Kristina Mclelan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, contends Support Pets’ pricey documentation is legally invalid, and that the company knows it.
In her proposed class action, Mcclellan accuses Support Pets of negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.
Support Pets, based in Miami, connects pet owners with licensed healthcare professionals to obtain ESA and PSD documentation.
According to the lawsuit, many people with disabilities require service animals, which is defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act as a “dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability.”
Entities that provide goods or services to the public must provide reasonable modifications to accommodate people with disabilities, and thus “no pets” policies generally are inapplicable to service animals.
Under the Fair Housing Act, or FHA, legitimate ESA letters allow owners to bypass “no-pet policies” and waive pet rent or deposits.
“Service animals are not merely animals that ‘provide[] comfort’ to their owner,” the lawsuit states. “Emotional support, therapy, comfort, and companion animals do not qualify as service animals.
“Thus, emotional support animals are not provided the same protections against ‘no pets’ policies that service animals are provided.”
Mclelan contends that Support Pets “intentionally” makes its documentation appear official.
“It registered the trademark Official ESA®, making customers believe that Defendant can provide official documentation that permit pet owners without disabilities to exempt their pets from ‘no pets’ policies,” the complaint states.
“Defendant’s secret is this – Defendant’s products provide no such special permissions.”
The lawsuit argues that pet owners such as Mclelan purchased Support Pets’ products relying on the fact that they would be allowed to take their pets to places that had “no pet” policies.
Not to mention, Support Pets advertises that its products saves pet owners money by eliminating costly pet deposits and fees, the filing contends.
“Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased Defendant’s products, or would not have paid the prices charged for those products, had they known Defendant’s representations regarding Support Pets’ products were false or misleading,” the suit states.
Mclelan, a California resident, claims she purchased an ESA identification card and certificate from Support Pets in 2023. She paid about $125 for the products.
Her lawsuit seeks certification of a nationwide class of “all persons residing in the United States who purchased products from Defendant through Support Pets during the applicable limitations period.”
In addition, or in the alternative to a nationwide class, she seeks certification of a California subclass of “all persons residing in the State of California who purchased products from Defendant through Support Pets during the applicable limitations period.”
An exact number of class members are unknown at this time, according to the lawsuit.
Mclelan seeks a temporary and permanent order enjoining Support Pets from continuing its “deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair” business practices.
The lawsuit also compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre-and post-judgment interests, court costs and attorney fees.
Milberg PLLC in Miami and Ahdoot & Wolfson PC in New York seek to be appointed class counsel.
A similar proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in May.
