6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 1 of 35
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 20-cv-0423-JFH
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JEFFREY LOWE, LAUREN LOWE,
`GREATER WYNNEWOOD EXOTIC
`ANIMAL PARK, LLC, and TIGER KING,
`LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion for preliminary injunction [Dkt. No. 27] and
`
`the motion for temporary restraining order [Dkt. No. 31] filed by the United States of America (the
`
`“United States”) against Defendants Jeffrey Lowe a/k/a Jeff Lowe (“Jeff Lowe”), Lauren Lowe,
`
`Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park, LLC (“GWEAP, LLC”) and Tiger King, LLC
`
`(collectively referred to as “Defendants”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the
`
`preliminary injunctive relief requested by the United States in both motions.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
`
`This case arises from alleged violations by Defendants of the Endangered Species Act, 16
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1531-44, (“ESA”) and the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-59, (“AWA”). See
`
`generally Dkt. No. 2. From 2017 until approximately September 2020, Jeff Lowe and Lauren
`
`
`1 The facts contained in this section are undisputed, except as noted. The Court deems uncontested
`facts established by affidavit or evidence as admitted for the purpose of deciding a motion for
`preliminary injunction. See Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1146 (10th
`Cir.2013).
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 2 of 35
`
`Lowe (collectively, the “Lowes”), along with GWEAP, LLC, operated a roadside zoo in
`
`Wynnewood, Oklahoma (“Wynnewood Location”)2 See Big Cat Rescue, No. CIV-16-155-SLP,
`
`2020 WL 2842845, at *3 (requiring that the property be vacated 120 days from the June 1, 2020
`
`Order). Dkt. No. 28-30 at 3-14.
`
`Inspectors from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (“APHIS”), United States
`
`Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), performed inspections of the Wynnewood Location on June
`
`22, 2020 and July 8, 2020. Dkt. No. 28-15; Dkt. No. 28-21. Reports from those inspections
`
`document numerous instances of animals at the facility being provided inadequate food, shelter,
`
`and veterinary care in violation of the AWA. Id. As a result of the documented violations, Jeff
`
`Lowe’s AWA license was suspended on August 13, 2020. Dkt. No. 28-29 at 2-3. On August 17,
`
`2020, the USDA filed an administrative complaint seeking permanent revocation of Jeff Lowe’s
`
`AWA license and imposition of civil penalties. Dkt. No. 28-30. Jeff Lowe voluntarily terminated
`
`his AWA license on August 21, 2020.3 Dkt. No. 28 at 20; Dkt. No. 54 at 1. The USDA’s
`
`administrative action against Jeff Lowe is still pending. Dkt. No. 28-30.
`
`In an unrelated case, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
`
`issued an order requiring Defendants to vacate the Wynnewood Location by October 1, 2020. See
`
`Big Cat Rescue Corp. v. Schreibvogel, No. CIV-16-155-SLP, 2020 WL 2842845, at *3 (W.D.
`
`Okla. June 1, 2020). At some point in 2020, the Lowes, along with a business associate Eric Yano
`
`(“Yano”), formed Tiger King, LLC for the purpose of marketing their zoo which was to be moved
`
`
`2 The zoo at the Wynnewood Location, for a period of time, was also operated by Joe Maldonado-
`Passage, also known as “Joe Exotic,” featured in the Netflix® series “Tiger King: Murder,
`Mayhem and Madness.”
`
`3 Lauren Lowe does not have a USDA issued AWA exhibitors license; she and Defendant
`GWEAP, LLC had operated under Jeffrey Lowe’s license. Dkt. No. 54 at 1.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 3 of 35
`
`to, and operated from, a location in Thackerville, Oklahoma. Dkt. No. 56-3 at 1. According to
`
`the United States, Defendants have established an unlicensed exhibition facility known as Tiger
`
`King Park, in Thackerville, Oklahoma, which houses approximately 100 to 200 ESA protected
`
`animals for the purpose of exhibiting their animals to the public (the “Thackerville Location” or
`
`“Tiger King Park”) . Dkt. No. 2 at 5.
`
`On November 19, 2020, the United States filed a complaint seeking declaratory and
`
`injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 2. Specifically, the United States seeks an order: (1) declaring that
`
`Defendants have violated the ESA and the AWA; (2) enjoining Defendants from interfering with
`
`USDA inspections of their properties, exhibiting animals without a license and placing the
`
`animals’ health and safety at risk; and (3) requiring Defendants to relinquish possession of all ESA
`
`protected animals. Id. at 46-47.
`
`On November 25, 2020, the United States filed its first motion for preliminary injunction
`
`seeking an order: (1) requiring Defendants to provide a complete and accurate inventory of the
`
`animals in their custody or control; (2) prohibiting Defendants from acquiring or disposing of any
`
`animals without notice to the United States and consent of the Court; (3) requiring Defendants to
`
`submit complete and accurate veterinary records to the United States’ attorneys within seven days
`
`of any animal’s treatment; and (4) authorizing APHIS to conduct an immediate inspection of Tiger
`
`King Park and inspections every three weeks thereafter for the duration of the injunction. Dkt.
`
`No. 9; Dkt. No. 10 at 31-32. The Court set a hearing on the motion for December 16, 2020. Dkt.
`
`No. 14.
`
`On December 14, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation in which they agreed, in pertinent
`
`part, that: (1) on or before December 15, 2020, Defendants would provide the United States with
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 4 of 35
`
`a complete inventory of all ESA and AWA protected animals in their custody or control;4 (2)
`
`during the pendency of the case, Defendants would not acquire or dispose of any ESA or AWA
`
`protected animal without first meeting and conferring with the United States and obtaining leave
`
`of Court; (3) APHIS would conduct routine inspections of Tiger King Park, the first of which
`
`would occur on December 15, 2020; and (4) thereafter, APHIS would conduct unnoticed
`
`inspections of Tiger King Park, not to exceed one inspection every 21 days, at USDA’s discretion.
`
`Dkt. No. 23 at 2.5 The Court approved the parties’ stipulation and vacated the December 16, 2020
`
`hearing. Dkt. No. 25.
`
`
`
`On December 23, 2020, the United States filed a second motion for preliminary injunction,
`
`citing additional ESA and AWA violations following the December 15, 2020 inspection. Dkt. No.
`
`27; Dkt. No. 28 at 13-14. In its motion, the United States requests that, pending adjudication of
`
`its claims, the Court order Defendants to: (1) immediately cease exhibiting animals without a valid
`
`exhibitor’s license; (2) retain an attending veterinarian, as required under the AWA; (3) provide
`
`acquisition and disposition records for all animals missing since the June 2020 inspection; (4)
`
`submit veterinary records after treatment of an animal; and (5) submit acquisition and disposition
`
`records after any change to the December 16, 2020 inventory. Dkt. No. 27; Dkt. No. 28 at 33-34.
`
`
`
`On December 30, 2020, the United States also filed a motion for a temporary restraining
`
`order. The United States claims that on or about December 21, 2020, Defendants authorized the
`
`euthanasia of a tiger cub with metabolic bone disease and secondary fracture without conferring
`
`with the United States or seeking leave of Court, in violation of the parties’ stipulation. Dkt. No.
`
`
`4 Pursuant to the stipulation, the inventory was to include each animal’s name, species name,
`location within facility, parents, birth date or acquisition date, sex, and owner. Dkt. No. 23 at 2.
`
` 5
`
` Common dogs, cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits were exempted from the inventory and
`acquisition/disposition provisions of the stipulation. Dkt. No. 23 at 1.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 5 of 35
`
`32 at 23-24. In its motion for temporary restraining order, the United States seeks an order
`
`requiring Defendants to relinquish custody and control of all Big Cat6 cubs one year old or
`
`younger, along with the cubs’ respective mothers, to the United States for temporary placement at
`
`reputable facilities selected by the United States. Dkt. No. 32 at 32.
`
`
`
`The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the United States’ motion for preliminary
`
`injunction and motion for temporary restraining order on January 12, 2021.7 Dkt. No. 35. Based
`
`on the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that
`
`the United States is entitled to the preliminary injunctive relief requested.
`
`II.
`
`STANDARD
`
`Except as to notice and duration, the legal standards governing a temporary restraining
`
`order (“TRO”) and a preliminary injunction are the same. See People’s Tr. Fed. Credit Union v.
`
`Nat’l Credit Union Admin. Bd., 350 F. Supp. 3d 1129, 1138 (D.N.M. 2018) (“The requirements
`
`for a TRO issuance are essentially the same as those for a preliminary injunction order.”). The
`
`primary difference between a TRO and a preliminary injunction is that a TRO may issue without
`
`notice to the opposing party and that a TRO is of limited duration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
`
`Where, as here, a motion for a TRO is before the Court after notice to the opposing party and an
`
`
`6 For the purpose of the subject motions, “Big Cats” refer to lions, tigers and hybrids thereof. Dkt.
`31 at 1, n. 1.
`
`7 No live witness testimony was presented at the evidentiary hearing. All witness testimony in this
`case has been presented by Declaration. Dkt. No. 28-1; Dkt. No. 28-5; Dkt. No. 28-6; Dkt. No.
`28-7; Dkt. No. 28-8; Dkt. No. 28-9; Dkt. No. 28-13; Dkt. No. 28-14; Dkt. No. 28-16; Dkt. No. 28-
`17; Dkt. No. 28-18; Dkt. No. 28-19; Dkt. No. 28-20; Dkt. No. 28-22; Dkt. No. 28-23; Dkt. No. 28-
`24; Dkt. No. 28-25; Dkt. No. 28-26; Dkt. No. 28-31; Dkt. No. 28-36; Dkt. No. 28-37; Dkt. No. 32-
`1; Dkt. No. 32-2; Dkt. No. 32-3; Dkt. No. 55-8; Dkt. No. 55-9; Dkt. No. 55-10; Dkt. No. 55-11;
`Dkt. No. 56-2; Dkt. No. 56-3; Dkt. No. 57-1; Dkt. No. 57-2. See also Stipulation for Hearing, Dkt.
`53 at 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 6 of 35
`
`evidentiary hearing, it is treated as a motion for preliminary injunction. See TLX Acquisition Corp.
`
`v. Telex Corp., 679 F. Supp. 1022, 1028 (W.D. Okla. 1987) (treating the application for a TRO as
`
`a motion for preliminary injunction where the defendants had notice of the application and the
`
`application was before the Court following an evidentiary hearing in which all parties
`
`participated); see also Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 86 (1974) (agreeing with the circuit court,
`
`which “held that a temporary restraining order continued beyond the time permissible under Rule
`
`65 must be treated as a preliminary injunction, and must conform to the standards applicable to
`
`preliminary injunctions.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). For these reasons, the
`
`United States has requested that its motion for TRO be treated as a motion for preliminary
`
`injunction. The Court agrees that this is appropriate.
`
`Whether sought through a TRO or a preliminary injunction, injunctive relief is an
`
`“extraordinary remedy,” and the movant must demonstrate a “clear and unequivocal right” to have
`
`its request granted. Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250, 1256 (10th Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must satisfy four factors: (1) a likelihood of
`
`success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that the movant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence
`
`of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in the movant’s favor; and (4) the injunction
`
`is in the public interest. Id. at 1257. The primary goal of a preliminary injunction is to preserve
`
`the pre-trial status quo. RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1208 (10th Cir. 2009). “In
`
`determining the status quo for preliminary injunctions, this court looks to the reality of the existing
`
`status and relationship between the parties and not solely to the parties’ legal rights.” Schrier v.
`
`Univ. Of Co., 427 F.3d 1253, 1260 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 7 of 35
`
`Because the primary goal of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the pre-trial status quo,
`
`courts are especially cautious when granting mandatory preliminary injunctions, which require the
`
`nonmoving party to take affirmative action before a trial on the merits occurs. See RoDa Drilling,
`
`552 F.3d at 1208. Therefore, to demonstrate the propriety of such relief, the movant must make a
`
`heightened showing of the four requisite factors. Id. This heightened standard is intended “to
`
`minimize any injury that would not have occurred but for the court’s intervention.” Id. While
`
`mandatory preliminary injunctions are traditionally disfavored, when the moving party
`
`demonstrates that the “exigencies of the case require extraordinary interim relief,” the district court
`
`may grant the motion upon satisfaction of the heightened burden. See Schrier, 427 F.3d at 1258-
`
`59; O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973, 975 (10th Cir.
`
`2004).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Motion for Preliminary Injunction
`
`In this case, the United States argues that it is entitled to injunctive relief to preserve the
`
`
`
`relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held. See Univ. of Tex. v.
`
`Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). To this end, the United States requests that, pending
`
`adjudication of its claims, the Court order Defendants to: (1) immediately cease exhibiting animals
`
`without a valid exhibitor’s license; (2) retain an attending veterinarian, as required under the AWA
`
`within fourteen days of the Court’s order; (3) provide acquisition and disposition records for all
`
`animals missing since the June 2020 inspection within seven days of the Court’s order; (4) submit
`
`veterinary records after treatment of an animal within seven days of the treatment; (5) submit
`
`acquisition and disposition records after any change to the December 16, 2020 inventory within
`
`seven days of the change; and (6) immediately relinquish all Big Cats one year old or younger, in
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 8 of 35
`
`Defendants’ custody, possession or control, as well as the animals’ respective mothers to the
`
`United States for placement at reputable facilities. Dkt. No. 27; Dkt. No. 28 at 33-34; Dkt. No. 31
`
`at 1; Dkt. No. 32 at 32.
`
`1.
`
`Likelihood of Success on the Merits
`
`a. The Endangered Species Act
`
`The ESA was enacted to provide a mechanism for the preservation of endangered species
`
`and the ecosystems upon which they rely. 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). The ESA prohibits the violation
`
`of any provision or regulation issued thereunder which pertains to an endangered or threatened
`
`species of fish or wildlife. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(G). According to the United States, Defendants
`
`own the following ESA-protected animals: tigers, Panthera tigris (50 C.F.R. § 17.11(h)
`
`(endangered)); ring-tailed lemurs, Lemuridae catta (50 C.F.R. § 17.11(h) (endangered)); one or
`
`both of the two lion subspecies, Panthera leo and Panthera leo melanochaita (50 C.F.R. §§
`
`17.11(h), 17.40(r) (endangered and threatened, respectively)); and jaguars, Panthera onca (50
`
`C.F.R. § 17.11(h) (endangered)). Dkt. No. 28-35. Defendants suggest that their Big Cats are not
`
`subject to the ESA’s provisions because they are supposedly subspecies hybrids. Dkt. No. 55 at 8.
`
`This position is unavailing.
`
`Lions are listed at the subspecies level with subspecies, Panthera leo listed as endangered
`
`and subspecies Panthera leo melanochaita listed as threatened. 50 C.F.R. § 17.11. Tigers are
`
`listed at the species level, but are protected as endangered species under the ESA, whether they
`
`are born in captivity or in the wild. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1538(b)(1); 1532(6); see also 81 Fed. Reg.
`
`19923, 19923 (Apr. 6, 2016); 37 Fed. Reg. 6,476 (Mar. 30, 1972); see also 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16)
`
`(defining “species” as including “any subspecies”); see also Kuehl v. Sellner, 161 F. Supp. 3d 678,
`
`688. (N.D. Iowa 2016) (“When an animal is listed as protected at the species level, all subspecies
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 9 of 35
`
`of that animal are also protected.”). Likewise, all tigers, whether they are “purebred” or “inter-
`
`subspecific crossed or generic” are protected Under the ESA. Id. at 19928. 8
`
`The offspring of two different ESA-listed species, such as a lion-tiger hybrid, are
`
`considered also protected “fish or wildlife” under the ESA. See 16 U.S.C. § 1532(8) (defining the
`
`term “fish or wildlife” to include “any member of the animal kingdom, including without limitation
`
`any mammal . . . and includes any . . . offspring thereof.”); Kuehl, 161 F. Supp. 3d. at 689
`
`(recognizing that “[o]ffspring resulting from crossbreeding between protected species or
`
`subspecies are protected by the ESA.”). And, as the United States notes, in another case in which
`
`Jeff Lowe is a defendant, the court recently issued an order rejecting the argument that Big Cat
`
`hybrids are not protected under the ESA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Wildlife
`
`in Need &Wildlife in Deed, No. 4:17-cv-186, Dkt. 414 at 6-7 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 15, 2020).
`
`Under the ESA, it is unlawful for any person to “take” an endangered “species of fish or
`
`wildlife.” 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B); 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.21(d), 17.31(a). For purposes of the ESA,
`
`to “take” means to “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). Congress has interpreted this term
`
`in the “broadest possible manner.” Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cntys. for a Great Or., 515
`
`U.S. 687, 704-05 (1995). The term “harm” is defined by regulation as “an act which actually kills
`
`or injures wildlife.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3(c)(3). The term “harass” is “less demanding.” Hill v.
`
`Coggins, 867 F.3d 499, 511 (4th Cir. 2017). It requires only an “act or omission which creates the
`
`likelihood of injury to the wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt
`
`
`8 The ESA’s regulations require that a person must obtain authorization from the U.S. Fish and
`Wildlife Service to take protected captive-bred wildlife, unless the species is exempted from
`captive-bred wildlife registration. See 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(a), 17.21(g)(1); 17.21(g)(6); 17.32(a).
`While “inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers” were once exempted from captive-bred wildlife
`registration, they have since been removed from the exemption list. ESA 81 Fed. Reg. at 19923.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 10 of 35
`
`normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”
`
`50 C.F.R. § 17.3(c).
`
`Here, the United States argues that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its ESA claim
`
`because it can show that Defendants have “harmed” and “harassed” ESA protected animals by:
`
`(1) subjecting the animals to unsanitary conditions; (2) providing the animals with inadequate
`
`nutrition; and (3) failing to provide adequate and timely veterinary care. Id. As to the nutrient-
`
`deficient diets, the United States has submitted evidence regarding several ESA protected animals
`
`in Defendants’ care while at the Wynnewood Location and also at Tiger King Park, now at the
`
`Thackerville Location.
`
`i.
`
`Alleged Violations at the Wynnewood Location
`
`a. Unsanitary Conditions
`
`During the June 22, 2020 inspection of the Wynnewood Location, inspectors observed a
`
`large pile of wood debris in the back of the park along with the partially burned carcass of Young
`
`Yi, a deceased tiger hybrid. Dkt. No. 28-15 at 6-7. There was “a foul odor of decomposing flesh
`
`and many flies present on the Board and surrounding areas.” Id. The flies had caused fly strikes,
`
`which are “large patches of painful ulceration on the ears and legs,” on “numerous lions, tigers,
`
`and wolves.” Id. The ulcerated areas were red, scabbed, and some “exuded pus or fresher blood.”
`
`Id. The affected areas were “missing hair, skin and/or deeper flesh.” Id.
`
`On June 22, 2020, inspectors also observed packages of chicken on a trailer in the sun that
`
`had flies on them. Dkt. No. 28-19 at 4. During the July 8, 2020 inspection of the Wynnewood
`
`Location, inspectors discovered an inoperable refrigerator truck containing open boxes of decaying
`
`meat. Dkt. No. 28-21 at 5, 11-15, 18. The temperature inside the truck was greater than 85 degrees
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 11 of 35
`
`Fahrenheit. Id. at 5. The inspectors noted that there was no other functioning large refrigeration
`
`or freezer unit or other food source for carnivores on the property. Id.
`
`b. Inadequate Nutrition
`
`Nala is a lion cub who was discovered in dire condition during the June 22, 2020 inspection
`
`of the Wynnewood Location. Dkt. No. 28-15 at 4. Due to Nala’s poor body condition, inspectors
`
`believed her to be only 4 or 5 months old, when in fact, at the time, Nala was 10 months old. Id.
`
`During the inspection, Nala appeared “lethargic, depressed, and thin and would not get up out of
`
`the mud from the sitting position even after prompting.” Id. “She had a string of purulent nasal
`
`discharge hanging from her right nostril and had an accumulation of green discharge in her eyes.
`
`Her respiration was shallow and rapid.” Id. Nala was taken for immediate veterinary treatment.
`
`Id.
`
`In September 2020, pursuant to a court order in another case, Nala and two other lion cubs
`
`were transported to a sanctuary in Colorado. 9 Dkt. No. 28-1 at 3. Upon arrival at the sanctuary,
`
`Nala was underweight and undersized for her age. Dkt. No. 28-17 at 3. Nala had difficulty
`
`standing and walking. Id. at 3. She was found to be severely deficient in vitamin A and thiamine
`
`levels to an extent that put her at risk for additional developmental deficits, changes in bone
`
`development, neurologic abnormalities, and death. Id. at 4. The evaluating veterinarian
`
`determined that these deficiencies were caused by her inadequate nutrition. Id.
`
`
`9 See People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Wildlife in Need & Wildlife in Deed, Inc.,
`No. 4 17-CV-00186-RLY-DML, 2020 WL 4448481, at *13 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 3, 2020). In Stark,
`the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the defendant, Timothy Stark, to maintain the
`status quo by not disposing of any animals in his possession. However, in violation of the court’s
`order, Stark left four neonatal lions with the Lowes. Thereafter, the court granted a permanent
`injunction terminating Stark’s ownership rights in various animals, including the four lions in the
`Lowe’s custody. According to the United States, Nala was one of the lion cubs the Lowes obtained
`from Stark. Dkt. No. 27 at 7 n. 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 12 of 35
`
`Gizzy, an emaciated grizzly bear, was also discovered during the June 22, 2020 inspection
`
`of the Wynnewood Location. Dkt. No. 28-15 at 4. Investigators noted that Gizzy’s spine and hip
`
`bones were easily visible, and she was exhibiting aggressive behavior. Id. at 5-6, 33. When
`
`Defendants vacated the Wynnewood Location, Gizzy was left behind. Dkt. No. 28-20 at 3. She
`
`was eventually transported to a sanctuary in Colorado. Id. Upon arrival, she was described as
`
`“stunted and underweight” and exhibited “behavior of ravenous eating.” Id.; Dkt. No. 28-17 at 5.
`
`In photographs taken on November 21, 2020, Gizzy appears to have gained weight and her spine
`
`and hip bones are no longer visible. Dkt. No. 28-23.
`
`Ayeesha was a lion-tiger hybrid cub who was euthanized in September 2020. After a
`
`review of Ayeesha’s veterinary records, Dr. Laurie Gage, an APHIS veterinarian, concluded that
`
`“the Lowes’ failure to provide her with proper nutrition and adequate veterinary care caused this
`
`animal to suffer greatly before she had to be euthanized at the age of ten months.” Dkt. No. 28-16
`
`at 5. At approximately two months of age, Ayeesha was hospitalized and placed on a feeding tube
`
`due to severe dehydration and malnutrition. Dkt. No. 28-11 at 78. As she developed, Ayeesha
`
`was consistently underweight and suffered multiple fractures. Dkt. No. 28-11 at 76.
`
`In July 2020, consulting veterinarian Jennifer Devine Fritzler treated Ayeesha for
`
`roundworms and a fractured pelvis. Dkt. No. 28-9 at 4. Ayeesha was also diagnosed with
`
`metabolic bone disease. Dkt. No. 28-16 at 6. According to Dr. Gage, metabolic bone disease is
`
`“a painful disease that . . . occurs when an animal is fed an inappropriate diet devoid of calcium
`
`and vitamin D.” Dkt. No. 28-16 at 6. In Big Cats, metabolic bone disease causes the “bones to
`
`become weak and susceptible to fractures, the animals to become painful and lame, and in some
`
`cases may result in fractures to the vertebral bodies that could result in serious neurological
`
`problems.” Id. Metabolic bone disease “is easily preventable by feeding an appropriate, balanced
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 13 of 35
`
`diet.” Dkt. No. 28-16 at 6. Although metabolic bone disease is treatable when diagnosed and
`
`treated early, in Ayeesha’s case, Dr. Gage determined that “the Lowes failed to provide her a
`
`proper diet containing calcium and other necessary nutrients to allow her to grow and the bones to
`
`develop normally [which] resulted in multiple painful fractures in several limbs that caused [her]
`
`to suffer needlessly.” Id.
`
`After treating Ayeesha’s roundworms and broken pelvis, Dr. Fritzler advised the Lowes to
`
`keep Ayeesha confined to the medical building. However, on July 8, 2020, Dr. Fritzler was
`
`contacted by a veterinarian from the USDA who informed her that Ayeesha was observed in an
`
`outdoor enclosure contrary to her advice. Id. According to Dr. Fritzler, removing Ayeesha from
`
`the medical building likely contributed to Ayeesha suffering another fracture for which Dr. Fritzler
`
`treated her on July 11, 2020. Id. By September 2020, Ayeesha had deformities due to the multiple
`
`healing fractures and was immobile. Dkt. No. 28-11 at 76; Dkt. No. 28-16 at 6. She was ultimately
`
`euthanized due to her deteriorating condition. Dkt. No. 28-16 at 6.
`
`c. Inadequate and Untimely Veterinary Care
`
`Dot was a female tiger whose veterinary records indicate she was bred five times between
`
`the ages of two and five years old. Dkt. No. 28-10 at 39. Her last three litters resulted in stillbirths.
`
`Id. Although multiple stillbirths are unusual in Tigers, the Lowes did not seek veterinary care for
`
`Dot and continued to breed her. Dkt. No. 28-16 at 4. On June 19, 2020, Dot required emergency
`
`surgery after her last litter of stillborn cubs and died two days later due to complications from the
`
`surgery. Dkt. No. 28-16 at 4.
`
`Mama was a female tiger who had to be euthanized after a delay in care during a difficult
`
`birth. Dkt. No. 28-16 at 3-4. Veterinary records indicate that Mama was allowed to labor for 48
`
`hours before a veterinarian was consulted. Dkt. No. 28-16 at 3-4. During this period, Defendants
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 14 of 35
`
`gave Mama three doses of oxytocin, which increases the risk of uterine rupture. Id. Mama’s uterus
`
`did in fact rupture, causing sepsis, and she had to be euthanized. Id. According to Dr. Gage, “it
`
`is possible that Mama’s life and the lives of some of her offspring ma[y] have been saved had a C-
`
`section been performed by a trained veterinarian in a timely manner.” Dkt. No. 28-16 at 4.
`
`Lizzie was an 11-year-old tiger who suffered from a subluxated disc and was lame in one
`
`of her hind legs. Id. By the time Lizzie was treated by a consulting veterinarian over a month
`
`after the disc injury, she was unable to use her back legs and dragged them as she walked. Id.;
`
`Dkt. No. 28-9 at 110. This caused wounds through her muscles and even down to her bone in one
`
`place. Id. Lizzie was euthanized due to her condition. Dkt. No. 28-9 at 110-111; Dkt. No. 28-16
`
`at 9. According to Dr. Gage, if Lizzie’s condition had been addressed earlier, surgery may have
`
`been a viable option and if it wasn’t, Lizzie could have been euthanized earlier, sparing her over
`
`one month of unnecessary suffering. Dkt. No. 28-16 at 9.
`
`Promise was a 12-year-old tiger whose condition had apparently been declining for about
`
`a month before the Lowes sought treatment for him. Dkt. No. 28-9 at 46; Dkt. No. 28-25 at 38-
`
`39. Defendants attempted to treat him with cannabidiol (“CBD”) oil, which was not recommended
`
`by the veterinarians occasionally consulted. Id.; Dkt. No. 28-13 at 2. By the time he was treated
`
`by a veterinarian, Promise had been unable to walk for two weeks and had large pressure sores on
`
`both hips and left stifle. Dkt. No. 28-25 at 38. At that point, the treating veterinarian assessed his
`
`chances of recovery as poor and he was euthanized. Id. at 39.
`
`Petunia was a 5 or 6-year-old tiger. Her veterinary records indicate that she was euthanized
`
`for apparent renal failure. Dkt. No. 28-9 at 81-82; Dkt. No. 28-25 at 31. The Lowes contacted a
`
`consulting veterinarian regarding Petunia because she was not eating and was “pretty lethargic.”
`
`Dkt. No. 28-16 at 8. Unable to see the consulting veterinarian, who was out of town, the Lowes
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 15 of 35
`
`consulted a local food animal veterinarian who diagnosed Petunia with renal failure. Id.
`
`According to Dr. Gage, this veterinarian treated Petunia with an insufficient amount of fluids for
`
`an animal her size with renal failure. Id. Dr. Gage testified that the cause of renal failure should
`
`have been explored because the disease is rare in tigers Petunia’s age and that with adequate and
`
`timely veterinary diagnostics and treatment, renal disease is typically a treatable condition in
`
`animals as young as Petunia. Id.
`
`Young Yi was a 17-year-old tiger who apparently died on or around June 13, 2020. Dkt.
`
`No. 28-15 at 3. At the June 22, 2020 inspection, Young Yi’s partially burned carcass was found
`
`in a pile of wood at the back of the Wynnewood Location. Id. at 6-7. Facility representatives told
`
`inspectors that Young Yi had been exhibiting signs of illness prior to his death, which were
`
`assumed to be renal failure because of his age. Id. at 3. However, no records indicate that any of
`
`the veterinarians typically consulted by Defendants had examined or treated Young Yi before his
`
`death. Id. 10
`
`After reviewing the veterinarian records for Nala, Ayeesha, Mama, Dot, Lizzie, Promise,
`
`and Petunia, Dr. Gage testified that, “[a] recurring issue related to the care provided to the Big
`
`Cats in the Lowes’ possession is the delay in seeking adequate veterinary care, causing their
`
`animals to suffer unnecessarily.” Dkt. No. 28-16 at 3. “At times, their delay in seeking care
`
`resulted in the animal’s death.” Id. According to Dr. Gage, in the cases of Ayeesha, Mama, Dot,
`
`Petunia, Lizzie, and Promise, the animals’ conditions did not make their deaths inevitable. Id. Dr.
`
`Gage testified that “[t]he Lowes simply do not have the knowledge or expertise to care for their
`
`Big Cats without the regular assistance of a veterinarian with training and experience in the care
`
`
`10 While the United States claims that the Lowes provided to APHIS three falsified veterinary
`records, dated July 14, 2019, September 14, 2019, and May 18, 2020, these records do not appear
`to be in the record before this Court. Dkt. No. 28 at 20.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-00423-JFH Document 65 Filed in ED/OK on 01/15/21 Page 16 of 35
`
`and management of Big Cats.” Id. “This is evident in the fact that, at t