STATE OF INDIANA ) Jss: COUNTY OF MARION) STATE OF INDIANA, Plaintiff, v, WILDLIFE IN NEED AND WILDLIFE {N DEED, INC., TIMOTHY STARK, and MELISA LANE, Defendants. MARION SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION CAUSE NO: 49D10-2002-PL-006192 FILED war a9 2020 (408) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff State of Indiana (“State”), seeks preliminary injunction under Trial Rule 65 to enjoin Defendants Wildlife In Need and Wildlife In Deed, Inc. (“WIN”), ‘Timothy Stark (‘Stark’) and Melisa Lane (“Lane”) regarding Defendants’ ownership and care of wildlife. After hearing, the Court finds: FINDINGS 0) PACT ‘The Court incorporates the following paragraphs of the States Complaint for Appointment of Receiver and Permanent Removal of Divects fact: 's as its findings of Paragraphs 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, 20, 29, 34-35, 39-41INCLUSIONS OF LAW ‘The Court incorporates the following paragraphs of the States Complaint for Appointment of Receiver and Permanent Removal of Directors as its Conclusions of Law: Paragraphs 1-2, 10 1. A“preliminaty injunction” is a remedy that is used to preserve the status quo as it existed prior to a controversy pending a full determination on the merits of that controversy. US, Land Services, Ineov. U.S. Surveyor, Inc., 826 N.E.2d 49, 66°67 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). 2. The decision to grant a préliminary injunction is measured by the following factors: (1) whether the movant's remedies at law are inadequate, thus causing irreparable harm pending resolution of the substantive action; (2) whether the movant has at least a reasonable likelihood of success at trial by establishing a prima facie case; (3) whether the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the potential harm to the non-movant that would result from the granting of an injunction; and (4) the public interest would not be disserved by the granting of a preliminary injunction. Kosciusko Cty. Cmty. Fair, Inc. v. Clemens, 116 N.B.3d 1131, 1137 nd, Ct. App. 2018). 3. The above standard is modified when the moving party, here the State, invokes the per se rule, The per se rule provides that when the acts sought to be enjoined are unlawful or learly against the public interest, the State need not show irreparable harm or a balance of hardship in its favor. Indiana 2Alcohol & Tobacco Comm'n., 945 N.E.2d 187, 197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011); City of Gary v. Stream Pollution Control Bd., 422 N.B.2d 312 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). 4. The State has shown that remedies at law are inadequate, and that the public interest would be served by the granting of a preliminary injunction ORDER ‘The parties agree that 1 preliminary injunction shall issue with the following wovisior 1, Defendants shall not transfer ér remove any animals or corporate assets over the pendency of this civil action unless Court approval has been obtained through a hearing on Defendants’ motion to transfer or remove animals or corporate asséts, 2. Defendants shall notify the Court of any animal deaths, births, or acquisitions over the pendency of this eivil action. In the event of notification of animal deaths, Defendants shall provide the State with photographic documentation of stich: 3. Defendants shall provide adequate care touall animals over the pendency of this civil action. 4, Defendants shall properly feed all animals over the pendency of this civil action. eo Defendants shall provide adequate veterinary care to all animals over the pendency of this civil action,6. Defendants shall provide the State access to any and all locations animals are kept, have been kept, or will he kept for purposes of an inspection of the condition of animals and areas related to animal care and inventory of animals. 7. Defendants shall provide the State ac s to any locations the State's inspectors believe are related to animal care including but not limited to any and all animal food preparation areas, any and all animal food storage areas, any and all areas used for medical treatment of animals, any and all areas where animal medications are kept, and any and all vehicl 8. Defendants shall provide the State acéess to any locations animal records are kept and allow the State the opportunity to inspect and/or copy those records. 9. Defendants shall not disrupt, harass, or impede the State's inspection team during the inspection. 10.Defendants may have employces6f Defendants accompany the State’s inspection team. 11.The State may request additional relief and orders from the Court, following the inspection. In addition, the Court ORDERS: 12. The State shall be allowed to use a total of up to five (5) inspectors of its choice.13. The State shall be allowed to use a total of up to three (3) Office of Attorney General investigators to document the inspection using video and/or photography 14, The State shall be allowed to have up to four (4) Office of Attorney General attorneys attend and observe all aspects of the inspection. 15. The State may have law enforcement officers accompany on the inspection for protection in the amount of one law enforcement officer per each person indicated in Paragraphs 12-14 above, but not to exceed a total of six (6) law enforcement officers: 16. Lf Defendants document the inspection through video and/or photography, Defendants and their agents shall not intentionally capture the faces of any members of the State's inspection team. 17. The parties shall consult and submit a proposed Protective Order regarding materials and evidence gathered by the State, and including Defendants’ video and/or photographic documentation of the inspection, within thirty (30) days of the end of the inspection. 18. Members of the State’s inspection team shall not enter lion enclosures, tiger enclosures, bear enclosures, or wolf enclosures 19. Veterinarians on the State's inspection team may physically contact andlor treat animals the veterinarians believe are in distress or are in need ofmedical attention. Such veterinarians shall be bonded and/or insured against professional negligence. ‘Marchi 2020. we pe David J. Dreyer, Ju wy