Case 2:21-cv-00488-NBF Document 1 Filed 04/14/21 Page 1 of 49 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., and ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 2:21-cv-488 REIGLEMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A PYMATUNING DEER PARK, and RACHELLE SANKEY as an individual and D/B/A PYMATUNING DEER PARK, INC. Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (“PETA”) and Animal Legal Defense Fund (“ALDF”), bring this suit to address the ongoing mistreatment of more than two hundred animals held at an unaccredited Jamestown, Pennsylvania roadside zoo called Pymatuning Deer Park. These animals include lions, tigers, ring-tailed lemurs, a military macaw, and a Mikado pheasant, all of whom are listed under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-44.They also include many other unlisted animals—such as a black bear named Bosco confined for more than two decades in a concrete pit—who are maintained in conditions so egregious that they are unlawful, and Defendants’ unlawful conduct has produced a long-lasting effect that Defendants know or have reason to know significantly interferes with the public right, and therefore constitute a public nuisance. Case 2:21-cv-00488-NBF Document 1 Filed 04/14/21 Page 2 of 49 2. Pymatuning Deer Park is owned and operated by Defendant Rachelle Sankey, who also owns Defendant Reigleman Enterprises, Inc., Pymatuning Deer Park’s parent company, and Pymatuning Deer Park, Inc., a fictitious business name registered with the state of Pennsylvania (collectively, “Pymatuning” or “Defendants”). 3. At Pymatuning Deer Park, the animals suffer physically and psychologically because they are confined to undersized, virtually barren enclosures and are denied care that meets even their most basic needs. As further detailed below and in Plaintiffs’ statutory notice of intent to sue letter (“Notice of Intent”), attached here as Exhibit A, Defendants’ treatment of these animals falls below generally accepted husbandry practices and violates federal and state animal protection laws, including Pennsylvania’s animal welfare regulations, 58 Pennsylvania Code Sections 147.281-.287. 4. By subjecting the endangered or threatened animals at Pymatuning Deer Park to these substandard conditions, Defendants significantly disrupt and impair the animals’ ability to carry out their natural behaviors, cause them psychological distress and injury, and put them at risk of further injury, thereby “harming” and “harassing” them in violation of the ESA’s “take” prohibition. 5. By inflicting needless suffering on these and the other animals kept at Pymatuning Deer Park, in repeated violation of state and federal wildlife protection laws, Defendants have created a public nuisance that is contrary and repugnant to the interests of the Pennsylvania public. Plaintiffs bring this suit on their own behalf, on behalf of their members, and on behalf of the public at large, to ask the Court to enjoin Defendants’ unlawful conduct. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g), and has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. – 2 – Case 2:21-cv-00488-NBF Document 1 Filed 04/14/21 Page 3 of 49 7. The requested relief is proper under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 (injunctive relief and declaratory relief). 8. Plaintiffs provided notice regarding the violations alleged in this Complaint in their December 1, 2020, Notice of Intent, which was sent to Defendants, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Principal Deputy Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) more than sixty days prior to the filing of this action. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A)(i). 9. Defendants have not remedied the violations set out in the Notice of Intent nor have they applied for or received any permit to lawfully “take” any federally listed species. 10. The Secretary of the Interior has not commenced an action against Defendants to impose a penalty pursuant to the ESA or its implementing regulations, and the United States has not commenced a criminal prosecution against Defendants to redress a violation of the ESA or its implementing regulations. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A)(ii)–(iii). 11. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant Rachelle Sankey because she resides in the Western District of Pennsylvania and conducts her business, using the fictitious business name Pymatuning Deer Park, Inc., within this District. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Reigleman Enterprises, Inc., because it is a Pennsylvania Corporation with its principal place of business in this District. 12. Venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania because the violations of the ESA alleged in this Complaint have occurred, and continue to occur, within this judicial district. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(3)(A). 13. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because this Court has original jurisdiction under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g), – 3 – Case 2:21-cv-00488-NBF Document 1 Filed 04/14/21 Page 4 of 49 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the state law claims are so related to the underlying federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. III. THE PARTIES 14. Plaintiff PETA is a Virginia non-stock corporation and animal protection charity pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. PETA’s headquarters are in Norfolk, Virginia. 15. Plaintiff ALDF is a California non-stock corporation and animal protection charity pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. ALDF’s headquarters are in Cotati, California. 16. Defendant Reigleman Enterprises, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation located at 102 Aspen Way, Jamestown, Pennsylvania. Reigleman Enterprises, Inc., does business as Pymatuning Deer Park, which is located at 804 East Jamestown Road, Jamestown, Pennsylvania. 17. Defendant Rachelle Sankey owns Reigleman Enterprises, Inc., Pymatuning Deer Park, Inc., and Pymatuning Deer Park, which she also operates. On information and belief, she oversees the day-to-day operations at Pymatuning Deer Park and is responsible for managing animal care, providing animal care, supervising staff and volunteers, and participating in United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and Pennsylvania Game Commission (“Commission”) inspections. She is a citizen of Pennsylvania and resides at 842 East Jamestown Road, Jamestown, Pennsylvania. On information and belief, Rachelle Sankey owns, either directly or through these corporate entities, the animals at issue in this suit. Plaintiffs sue her individually and in her corporate capacities. – 4 – Case 2:21-cv-00488-NBF Document 1 Filed 04/14/21 Page 5 of 49 IV. STATUTORY BACKGROUND A. The Endangered Species Act 18. The ESA defines an “endangered species” as “any species which is in danger of extinction,” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6), and a “threatened species” as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future,” id. § 1532(20). 19. The ESA prohibits the “take” of any endangered species within the United States. Id. § 1538(a)(1)(B); 50 C.F.R. § 17.21. It likewise prohibits the taking of any threatened species within the United States unless otherwise provided by a special rule. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(G); 50 C.F.R. §17.31(a). 20. The term “take” is defined to include “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). 21. The term “harm” is defined by regulation as an act which “kills or injures” an endangered or threatened animal. 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. 22. The term “harass” is defined by regulation to include an “intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. 23. The ESA also prohibits the possession of any endangered species, or any threatened species unless otherwise provided by a Section 4(d) special rule, that has been unlawfully taken. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(D), (G); 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.21(d), 17.31(a). 24. The ESA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue a permit for any act that is otherwise prohibited by 16 U.S.C. § 1538, but only if such act is “for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species” and other strict requirements are met. 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(1)(A), (c), (d). – 5 – Case 2:21-cv-00488-NBF Document 1 Filed 04/14/21 Page 6 of 49 25. Defendants do not have a permit to lawfully “take” any federally listed species. 26. The ESA allows citizens to bring suit to enjoin “any person . who is alleged to be in violation” of the “take” provisions of the statute or of a regulation promulgated under the statute. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A). 27. Tigers (Panthera tigris), all lemurs, including ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta), military macaws (Ara militaris), and Mikado pheasants (Syrmaticus mikado) are listed as “endangered” under the ESA. 50 C.F.R. § 17.11(h). Lions (Panthera leo) are listed as either “endangered” or “threatened” depending upon their subspecies—the subspecies Panthera leo leo is listed as “endangered” and the subspecies Panthera leo melanochaita is listed as “threatened.” Id.