## Facts

- Labor Day Committee, Inc. sponsored an annual “Fred Coleman Memorial Pigeon Shoot” in Hegins, Pennsylvania, attended by large crowds.
- The event involved releasing thousands of pigeons to be shot; many birds were killed and a substantial number were wounded.
- The plaintiffs were agents of animal-protection organizations and sued in their capacities as humane-society agents.
- The complaint did not allege that shooting, killing, or wounding pigeons at the shoot was itself unlawful under Pennsylvania’s cruelty-to-animals statute.
- Plaintiffs alleged cruelty based on the handling of wounded pigeons: “trapper boys” allegedly killed injured birds by methods inconsistent with accepted euthanasia practices and causing unnecessary pain.
- Plaintiffs further alleged that wounded birds landing outside designated retrieval areas were left without treatment or humane euthanasia, resulting in prolonged suffering.
- Plaintiffs sought equitable relief to enjoin the upcoming shoot and all future shoots, alleging violations of 18 Pa. C.S. § 5511(a), (c).

## Issues

1. Whether humane-society agents have standing under 18 Pa. C.S. § 5511(i) to seek injunctive relief to prevent violations of § 5511.
2. Whether the allegations concerning the treatment of wounded pigeons stated a sufficient basis for equitable relief, given the availability of criminal enforcement for § 5511 offenses.
3. Whether prior precedent regarding pigeon shoots foreclosed the requested injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint in equity after the defendant’s preliminary objections were sustained.
- The court accepted that § 5511(i) grants humane-society agents standing to request an injunction.
- The court agreed that the act of shooting and wounding pigeons at the event, as pleaded, was not itself a violation of § 5511.
- The court declined to read prior precedent as categorically immunizing all conduct connected to a pigeon shoot from cruelty-to-animals claims.
- The court held that an injunction was not warranted because criminal processes provided an adequate remedy for discrete acts of animal cruelty, and equity should not broadly enjoin the entire event on an anticipatory record.

## Legal Principles

- 18 Pa. C.S. § 5511(i) confers standing on agents of incorporated animal-cruelty-prevention societies to seek to enjoin violations of § 5511, but standing alone does not establish entitlement to injunctive relief.
- Traditional equitable requirements apply to injunction requests, including the absence of an adequate remedy at law and a sufficient showing of immediate, irreparable harm.
- Equity generally will not be used to restrain anticipated criminal conduct where criminal enforcement mechanisms are available to address the alleged wrongdoing.
- Under Pennsylvania law as applied in this case, the mere conduct of shooting pigeons at a shoot, without more, was not pleaded as cruelty to animals under § 5511; claims focusing on subsequent mistreatment of wounded animals are analytically distinct.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court held that humane-society agents had statutory standing to seek injunctions for alleged cruelty-to-animals violations, but affirmed dismissal because broad injunctive relief against the pigeon shoot was inappropriate where the complaint targeted anticipated and episodic misconduct better addressed through criminal enforcement.


Mohler v. Labor Day Comm., Inc., 443 Pa. Super. 651, 663 A.2d 162 (1995)