Columbus, OH – Attorney Howard Taylor issued a response Wednesday (Aug. 19) to a statement from PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo issued last Friday (Aug. 14) about the settlement of the Tretter v. Bresnahan lawsuit.  To read Guillermo’s statement, click here.

Following is Attorney Howard Taylor’s response to PETA:

It is not often that I am willing to do battle through the media, especially on cases that have been resolved. However, I apparently touched a nerve with my statement concerning the settlement of Tretter v. Bresnahan. I am honored that an attorney from a small Philadelphia law firm could force such a reaction from the Senior Vice-President of PETA, one of the largest organizations in the Country.

My response is as follows:

What I said in my statement was not carefully worded or misleading. Ms. Guillermo was not present during the negotiations and her response was not only inaccurate, but blatantly false.

It was not Mr. Tretter’s request that $7,500 be donated to a horse rescue charity from the $20,000 settlement. Rather, it was our proposal that Mr. Tretter be paid $10,000.00 as a nuisance value settlement, with an additional $10,000 donated to an equine rescue charity.

Mr. Tretter refused, and insisted on receiving no less than $12,500 with the remaining $7,500 to be donated to the horse rescue charity. Thus, I guess it was technically Mr. Tretter’s request that $7,500 be donated, but that was from the $10,000.00 proposed number that he insisted be reduced.

Further, at no point was Mr. Tretter involved in any negotiation. In fact, when the Judge insisted that the parties attend a Settlement Conference, Tretter’s attorneys inquired as to whether a representative of PETA must be present, instead of Tretter.

Additionally, at no time did defendants delay and frustrate the legal process by refusing to respond to discovery. Rather, counsel for Tretter repeatedly flaunted the law forcing Motion after Motion to protect defendants’ interests. Certainly, PETA had unlimited funds and our clients did not.

Therefore, delay only enured to the benefit of Tretter.

It is true that I do not know the amount of legal fees spent in prosecuting this claim. However, PETA fully financed this case on behalf of Tretter. They retained K & L Gates, one of the largest law firms in the world. There were three attorneys working on this file full time for three years. It was indicated to us that the legal fees exceeded seven figures, but this is only common sense as you can do the math.

Most telling in regards to this settlement was the fact that PETA asked for it on the day that PETA needed to produce an expert report as to the doping allegations. If they could not produce a report, PETA’s claim would inevitably be ended by a defense Motion. The timing of settlement, three years after commencement of litigation, and the day that an expert report needed to be produced, shows that PETA had no real claim here and that they were never going to win on the science.

Settlement, for such a paltry sum, after having spent what they spent, was a face-saving move, at best, and provides future defendants with a road map to continuously protect against further attacks.

This is America. Anyone is free to bring whatever lawsuit they wish, no matter how frivolous. However, as previously stated, the Supreme Court has spoken that lawsuits dealing with gambling are purely speculative and will not succeed. The decision to settle this matter was not one of concern, but rather of economic realities in dealing with an adversary with unlimited funds.