Neighbors in a dispute after one shot and killed the other’s dog have escalated their case. A lawsuit was filed this week in district court.
David and A.J. Blaylock sued their neighbor, who shot and killed their dog Cleo. They are joined by Nicolas Sharpe, who owned a second dog, Steve, who was also shot. Both dogs dug under their fence and entered the neighbor’s backyard.
“While [they] were gone, the dogs dug a hole underneath the fence and got into [the neighbor’s] backyard where the dogs were ‘sniffing around’ in [a] fenced area,” the plaintiffs note in their lawsuit.
The dogs were alleged to have been in the neighbor’s backyard for hours before the owner came home and shot them both. He claimed the dogs charged him, and he felt threatened, according to court documents.
“Despite her devastating injuries, at no time did Cleo bark at, snarl at, growl at, charge at or attack the [responding] officers,” the suit notes. “Cleo was captured, while screaming horrifically, and was loaded into the [Washoe County animal services] vehicle, no muzzle applied. Steve was captured without incident, no muzzle applied, while WCRAS officers commented ‘good boy.'”
It wasn’t until a half hour after the shooting that 911 was called, the lawsuit notes. The plaintiffs said their neighbors—a husband and wife—fabricated a self-defense excuse.
No criminal charges were filed—despite the Reno Police Department investigating the case twice. Washoe County cited the Blaylocks for failing to keep the dogs on their property—they said they were at work when the incident occurred. The Blaylocks appealed that citation, also in district court, because they said Washoe County cited them under an out-of-date county code and violated their due process rights.
They also said Washoe County failed to issue them a warning, as required by county code. The district attorney is defending the county in the appeal.
The lawsuit alleges the defendant violated state law by causing “injury or death to another individual’s pet through intentional, willful, reckless or negligent actions.” Damages are being sought for emotional distress, medical expenses, loss of earnings, burial and veterinary costs.
Editor’s note: We have chosen not to publish the defendant’s name in this case because of the nature of the allegations and the absence of any criminal charges. This may change depending on developments in the case.
Disclosure: The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Luke Busby, who represents This Is Reno in public records litigation.
