WEST HOLLYWOOD—On Monday, July 13, a judge said he would consider approving a couple’s lawsuit against West Hollywood-based dog walking company Wag! to go to trial. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David J. Cowan indicated the issues would be evaluated further before he makes a final ruling.

In October 2019, plaintiffs Brandon Engholm and Brittany Rawlings sued Wag! for the death of their 10 1/2-year-old French bulldog, Burger, who died under the care of a dog walker employed by the company.

Cowan issued a tentative ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, and the Animal Protection and Rescue League Inc. (APRL), According to the case, Engholm, Rawlings, and APRL are against Wag!’s motion to push for arbitration.

Before issuing his final ruling, Cowan stated that he wanted to review in more detail whether Wag! met its burden to establish that a valid arbitration agreement existed. In his current ruling, Cowan wrote that the company “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…”

The suit’s claims include fraud and negligence. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an order to prevent 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,” states the lawsuit.

The couple noted they did not know about their dog’s death until a veterinarian contacted them. Wag! customer service later did not assist them, and the company said it had no history of a walk with Burger that day.

Engholm also stated in a sworn declaration against Wag!’s motion that the company did not tell 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.”

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 provided the following 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 plaintiffs’ dog was hit by an SUV during a walk and later died of its injuries in March 2019 in New York City. The dog walker was caught on surveillance video looking at her cellphone with the dog walking far behind her. At the end, it shows Burger walking slowly and alone in a crosswalk as he is run over while the walker was on the sidewalk. The camera footage and a photo of a witness crying over the dog’s accident were included in the suit.

Witnesses told the plaintiffs that after the dog was hit, the walker did not provide help. She stood there, repeated her concern about losing her job with Wag! and said that she was going to miss a concert that day with friends.