Drs: Here is an update on the lawsuit filed by the State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners/State Board of Pharmacy on August 2nd. The original petition is 18 pages long, so I am going to focus on what I see as the most pertinent information. (I will try to remember to take a copy of the petition home with me this evening, scan it, and post it on the texasvets yahoo site for those wishing to read the entire petition).

1. The petition was filed by the State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners and State Board of Pharmacy (Plaintiffs) against PetMed Express and Savemax (Defendants).

2. Defendants are alleged to have violated Sec. 801. 402(13) of the Veterinary Licensing Act by the "staff" veterinarian, and other persons, ordering a prescription drug for the treatment of an animal without first establishing a veterinarian-client-patient relationship.

3. Defendants are alleged to have violated Sec. 801. 251 of the Veterinary Licensing Act by the "staff" veterinarian, and others, practicing veterinary medicine without a license issued by the State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners by ordering a prescription drug for an animal.

4. Defendants are alleged to have violated Sec. 565. 002 of the Texas Pharmacy Act by placing the name of the Texas consumer's veterinarian on the prescription drug label, without the knowledge or consent of the consumer's veterinarian.

5. Defendants are alleged to have violated Sec. 565. 002 of the Texas Pharmacy Act by engaging in fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation by selling drugs to Texas consumers that have the bar code removed.

6. Defendants are alleged to have violated Sec. 565. 002 of the Texas Pharmacy Act by selling prescription drugs to Texas Consumers without a prescription.

7. Defendants are alleged to have violated Sec. 565. 002 of the Texas Pharmacy Act by selling misbranded prescription drugs to Texas Consumers.

8. Defendants are alleged to have violated Sec. 483. 042 of the Texas Health & Safety Code by delivering dangerous drugs, with the name of the Texas consumer's veterinarian on the prescription drug label, without the consent or knowledge of the consumer's veterinarian. A violation of this section is a state jail felony.

9. The Defendants are alleged to have aided and abetted in the violation of Sec. 483. 021(a) of the Texas Health & Safety Code by dispensing dangerous drugs to Texas consumers when their pharmacists knew, or should have known, that the prescriptions were issued without a valid patient-practitioner relationship. A violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

10. The violations mentioned above have been committed by the Defendants in the past and at the present time continue to be serious violations.

11. The Veterinary Licensing Act provides that any unlicensed person who is shown to have violated the Act is liable to the State for a civil penalty in an amount of $1, 000 per day for each day a violation has occurred. The Plaintiffs request that the court award a civil penalty against Defendants for each day that a violation of the Act has occurred.

12. The Pharmacy Act also provides for a penalty of $1, 000 per day for each day a violation has occurred and the Plaintiffs request the court award a civil penalty against Defendants for each day that a violation of the Act has occurred.

13. The Plaintiffs request that the Defendants be restrained and enjoined from engaging in the unlawful conduct listed above.

14. The Plaintiffs request a mandatory injunction requiring Defendants to inform Texas customers who contact them by telephone that their service is unavailable to Texas residents, and to clearly and conspicuously post a notice on any television advertisement or web site through which they sell prescription medications, including, but not limited to www. 1888petmeds. com <http: //www.1888petmeds.com/ advising customers that their services are unavailable to Texas residents.

15. The Plaintiffs request attorneys' fees and costs incurred in obtaining injunctive relief.

I just received an update from Ron Allen of the State Board. This is directly from a Texas AG email to Mr. Allen: Here is the latest info on the PetMed lawsuit.

The President of SaveMax was served with the lawsuit on Aug. 2. We are unsure if the President of PetMed has been served. SaveMax must answer the lawsuit by this coming Monday, September 9. The discovery papers sent with our petition must be answered within 50 days after service. SaveMax may be waiting until the 50 days to both answer the lawsuit and file answers to discovery.

If answer deadlines are missed, we can move for default judgment, but PetMed and SaveMax would then probably petition for a new trial and get it. They may try to move the case to federal court. Too early to tell. Joe Pitner will check back with me when there is more to report. Thursday, September 05, 2002 PetMed and Savemax have filed a general denial in the lawsuit. A copy of their Answer will be sent to you (the Board office) through interagency mail. Now we wait for their discovery responses.