Lawsuit by the Family Dog and Counterclaim by Owner
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (AND DOG TREATS)
Plaintiff Murphy the Dog (hereinafter “Murphy”) hereby seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Negligent Dog Owner (hereinafter “Dog Hater”) plus makes a special request for treats based upon the following allegations:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff brings this cause of action under the Mean Humans Who Never Walk Their Dog Act of 2011, a federal statute of great importance.
2. Hey look! I see a butterfly dance across the room or possibly just someone’s phone reflection! That’s fun!
3. Where were we.
4. Dog Hater failed to perform her mandatory duty under this Act along with the negligent acts and omissions of her offspring (hereinafter “Bratty Kids”) who said “all we ever wanted was a dog” and then never do anything for said dog, including walking, scratching, throwing tennis balls, or brushing fur but do, in fact, force dog to wear t-shirts and little neckties.
5. I’m so hungry. I think I smell something. Is that a piece of cheese Bratty Kids left on the floor? Maybe a bit of ham?
6. This tragic lack of action was prompted by Dog Hater, who put on her shoes and scratched Murphy under the head while saying “who’sagoodboy?,” which is a universal symbol that dog walking was about to occur. Yet, despite this false premise and manipulative statement, no walking did in fact occur.
7. None. Not even a stroll around the block. Not even a “hey let’s just toss a ball in the back yard.” NADA.
8. Hold on real quick I gotta lie down and take a quick nap.
9. This Court should be outraged at Dog Hater’s lack of all regard for Murphy in general, and this is the second time in a week Dog Hater put on her shoes and acted as if a walk would occur only to say something like “maybe tomorrow, buddy.” WELL TOMORROW ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH. SEE YOU IN COURT. ALSO SEE IF THE STORE HAS THOSE PEANUT BUTTER BISCUITS I LIKE SO MUCH.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays judgment against Dog Hater for damages, mental health trauma for no walking, costs incurred, the awarding of an entire tub of treats, and other relief as the court determines.
By: Murphy the Dog (dog print works as signature)
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
COMES NOW Defendant and answers the complaint as follows:
1. Defendant admits that at times, walking did not occur. Because Defendant is a human being with a job, and Murphy is a dog who sleeps all day.
2. Murphy is also supposed to go to the bathroom in the back yard, not on the rug next to the back door because he’s lazy or because he has diarrhea because he ate an entire baggie of potato chips. So if we are really talking about breaches of any duties, I’d say he is the negligent party here.
3. Dogs don’t have rights under Federal law. Dogs don’t get to file lawsuits. I’m doing this to humor the poor thing, who actually is cute when he turns over for a belly scratch.
4. WHOSEAGOODBOY
5. Even if such law were real, Murphy himself violated it by sleeping and snoring in Defendant’s home office instead of warning her someone was at the front door, thus eviscerating the entire concept of having a guard dog.
6. If Defendant hated Murphy she would give him away, not let him sleep in her bed during thunderstorms and provide him flea medicine.
7. Murphy reached up on the counter last week and grabbed hot dogs and devoured them in one sitting, which ruined the family barbecue. He was sick and heaving all night in the back room because he ate twelve wieners. Now he casts blame?
8. Also, don’t be an asshole by suing your master, Murphy. That’s literally biting the hand that feeds you.
9. A dog cannot just put a dog print on a legal document. How do we know that’s him? What if it’s the dog next door?
10. I don’t think our precious Murphy would do this. I think his attorney put him up to it.
