A judge said Monday he is inclined to allow a couple who sued the West Hollywood-based dog walking company Wag! over the 2019 death of their 10 1/2-year-old French bulldog to take their case to trial, but said he would study the issues further before making a final ruling.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David J. Cowan had issued a tentative ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Brandon Engholm and Brittany Rawlings, as well as the Animal Protection and Rescue League Inc., all of whom opposed Wag!’s motion to compel arbitration.
Cowan said that before issuing his final ruling, he wanted to review in more detail whether Wag! met its burden to establish that a valid arbitration agreement existed.
The suit’s allegations include fraud and negligence. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an injunction preventing the company from withholding information about injuries or deaths to their pets.
“Specifically, plaintiffs relied upon and believed Wag!’s advertisements that Wag!’s dog walkers were certified for trust and safety, were insured and bonded and were vetted through background checks to ensure each dog walker is competent, qualified and trained in the care and safety of pets in or related to Wag!’s custody, and that if anything goes wrong, Wag! would make it right,” according to the suit.
Engholm and Rawlings say they did not know about the fate of their pet until they were contacted by a veterinarian. In addition, Engholm stated in a sworn declaration offered in opposition to Wag!’s motion that the company never told him anything about arbitrating disputes.
“When I signed up for the Wag! dog walking service a few years ago and before the March 3, 2019, fatal incident, I did so on my phone and was never shown any terms of service,” Englholm says. “Nor did I see any disclaimer that I would be waiving any of my rights. I did not agree to any arbitration provision and would not have agreed to any such provision had I been asked to.”
In his tentative ruling, Cowan wrote that Wag! “has not provided any evidence as to how it gives users notice of the (terms of service) or updates to the (terms of service) or how their site or app operates…”
Attorneys for Wag! argue arbitration “is warranted here as there is an agreement to arbitrate the claims brought by Engholm and Rawlings and APRL’s claims are inextricably intertwined with the underlying claims.”
A Wag! representative previously issued a statement regarding the lawsuit.
“While we don’t comment on pending litigation, ensuring the safety and security of all those who use the Wag! platform is of utmost importance to us,” the statement read.
According to the suit, a Wag! walker arrived at the plaintiffs’ New York City home on March 3, 2019, to take their French bulldog, Burger, on a 30- minute walk.
After learning from the vet that the dog had died, the dog owners were given no help from Wag! customer service, which stated it had no history of a walk of Burger that day, the suit states.
“Plaintiffs had to relive Burger’s last moments up to the killing by piecing together external video surveillance from local businesses along (the believed to be) route Wag!’s inhumane dog walker took,” the suit alleges.
A video image included in the suit shows the walker looking at her cellphone with the elderly dog walking far behind her. The last video shows Burger walking slowly and alone in a crosswalk as he is run over by an SUV while the walker was on the sidewalk, the suit states.
Witnesses told the plaintiffs that immediately after the dog was run over and struggling to stay alive, the walker did not render aid, but instead stood there, repeating her concern she could lose her job with Wag! and saying that she was going to miss a concert that day with friends, according to the suit, which includes a photo of a witness collapsing in tears at the sight of the dog being hit by the vehicle.
I normally don’t comment on things like this, but I hope this walker burns in hell.
I could not be more happy this company is getting what it deserves. I was a huge fan of Wag when I first used them as a customer, so much, summer of 2017 i applied to be a walker to get exercise and spend more time with dogs. They hired literally anyone, you pay for your own background check, and get this! Half tthe time you take to walk the dog you’ve been assigned to walk, you won’t be on the clock/paid! And what they do pay you, when you work it out by the hour is less than minimum… Read more »
This story is so sad. I hate to be a cynic but this is what you can expect from our “gig economy”. I think you would be better off going to a dog park and asking other owners about dog walking services as I know several locals who provide this service privately and are incredibly caring and competent. Poor Burger!
This article is a mess. CNS needs some editors- why do we wait unto the penultimate paragraph to actually be told what the suit is based upon?
In any case, this doesn’t seem to be he first Wag! horror story I’ve read. I don’t think I would trust an app for taking care of my dog anymore than I’d use something named “Burp!” for taking care of my kid..
Hopefully Judge Cowan will cramp down on these highly irresponsible people with the walker and the nutty Wag company. A defenseless creature is killed and no one steps up to the plate. Hopefully the company will be toast either way in a charge of negligence and avoidance of responsibility. Basta!
This Wag! company probably operates like Uber and Postmates where the person doing the physical service is consider a independent contractor and not a employee of that company.That would give Wag! an out to claim the dog walker was at fault and should be completely held responsible for the loss of the pet.Of course,the gal won’t be able to pay any settlement in the thousands of dollars,hence the lawsuit. Since the dog owner claims he never saw a term of service on his smartphone. I wonder if Wag! took a shortcut and not posted the terms since it would be… Read more »
What bloody horrendous behavior can ever be expected by stupid millenials. They always have their selfish minds on their needs and not on the task at hand. How hard can it be to keep a dog 🐕 on leash and supervised. The owners of that company deserve to be sued.