Nathan Winograd loses TNR lawsuit for second time

In June 2008 The Urban Wildlands Group, Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles Audubon Society, Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society, and American Bird Conservancy sued the City of Los Angeles. They sued the City to stop them from continuing to implement TNR colonies without first doing the necessary environment reviews. Though the City denied they were implementing TNR, evidence showed and the court ruled that they had been operating such a program. In January 2010 the court issued a final judgment and an injunction prohibiting the City from operating a TNR program without first doing the necessary review.

Two months after the City lost the case Nathan Winograd, through his No Kill Advocacy Center, and Stray Cat Alliance filed an ex parte motion to intervene. The court denied the motion as untimely. These motions should be filed before a judgment is entered. Even though Nathan et al. knew about this case since the inception, he did not intervene earlier. In court documents they falsely stated they only heard about the lawsuit after the City lost. Even then they still did not file timely.

Immediately after losing this motion they appealed it to a higher court. That court denied their second motion to intervene. From the court, "The trial court acted well within its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely. Manifestly, there was no miscarriage of justice in denying appellants' ex parte application, made after entry of judgment, to hijack this lawsuit so as to reroute it into a controversy over issues the actual parties never had any interest in litigating."

What's interesting here is that the City did not even want Nathan Winograd to intervene on their behalf. As per court documents "The City contends that intervention at this point could impose additional litigation costs and further delay implementation of a City feral cat management program and the lifting of the injunction." By filing the motion to intervene Nathan knowingly delayed the implementation of a TNR program. How many cats may have died because of his actions?

Not only did the motion to intervene have no merit but it was not filed in a proper manner. The court noted that lead attorney Orly Degani never moved to vacate the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663. The court stated that the cases which Degani cited to support her motion had nothing to do with a motion to vacate judgment.

Keep in mind that Nathan Winograd is not only a "nokill guru" but also an attorney who was licensed to practice in California. He can't claim legal ignorance in this matter. Winograd et al. did not file in a timely or proper manner. They tried to argue TNR when the real issue was the ability to intervene. I'm starting to think that Winograd used this lawsuit as a soapbox for himself to try to sell copies of his book or to raise donations. I see no other reason why an intelligent sane individual would file a doomed legal motion.

I've been told that Orly Degani is an intelligent and experienced lawyer. I find it hard to believe she would sign on to a case doomed to failure based on its merits. I also find it hard to believe she could have made such a big mistake as not filing properly. I've been told she is a true cat lover who generally tears up while talking about her cats. Witnesses at the last court hearing stated that steam was coming out of Orly's ears and she was visibly flustered. Perhaps Degani was too emotionally close to the issue to act competently.

Now that Winograd has lost twice, will he file again? The result will not be different. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Let's see how Nathan defines himself.