Assertive K-9 Training Kennels Inc

Our two puppies have BILATERAL ELBOW DYSPLASIA and one also has BILATERAL HIP DYSPLASIA
WE CANNOT RECOMMEND THINSCHMIDT GERMAN SHEPHERDS due to our experience with our puppies' health problems
We obtained two puppies from different litters GONZO & SAYLA (May 2012) and GONZO & ANNA (Sept 2012) BOTH were diagnosed with ELBOW DYSPLASIA (at and months) and ONE also with HIP DYSPLASIA (before year of age)Once you have a dog in the family you aren't going to return it to the breeder Our puppies' conditions were identified and diagnosed by extremely well-qualified Board Certified Veterinary Surgeon and independent Board Certified Radiologist before one year of age, and then the youngest puppy was ALSO DIAGNOSED WITH HIP DYSPLASIA
Our puppies face a lifetime of arthritis It is a very sad experience We love our puppies but wish they were healthy
Dogs do NOT grow out of elbow or hip dysplasia, the damage to the joints will only get worse if untreated when the joint is unstable or when there are bone fragments in the joints as was the case with both our puppies You could feel the bones crunching in the joint when moving their limbs Both puppies were limping before diagnosis the reason that they were identifiedThe average age when elbow dysplasia presents is to months This is described on the OFA website
Thinschmidt stated that because we had surgery on our puppies the warranty would not applyThey wouldn't accept the CAT SCANs that we had done prior to surgery, nor would they consider the XRAYs they requested from our Vet that were sent to their Vet at their request Instead they took said we could not get a refund as allowed by California Health & Safety Code that regulates sale of dogs
For the hip dysplasia Thinschmidt required that we take our dog to their Vet when we requested the warranty due to hip dysplasia Their Vet agreed with our Vet's findings and showed them on the Xrays we brought where to see the dysplasia in both hips Their Vet x-rayed him again at their request, but it was not done by OFA or PENN standards that require sedationStill his finding was hip dysplasia
This is what Michele Office Manager (Daughter of Owner) the breeder wrote to us "The vet is stating Largo is diagnosed with only 'mild' hip dysplasia and therefore is not covered under our warrantySpecifically, it will not affect the health of the dog"
The statement that mild hip dysplasia will not affect the health of the dog was not in the Vet's report or statements Clearly it is Thinschmidt's opinion about hip dysplasia Shocking and Awful
We are not unhappy with our choice to have surgery taking the advise of a Board Certified Veterinary SurgeonWe are unhappy that we selected Thinschmidt a Breeder who continues to breed a dog that produces dysplasia
Facts are Facts and we have nothing to gain from posting our experience in this review with the Revdex.com site The Revdex.com would not accept our COMPLAINT to help us resolve this with Thinschmidt because we have not been in contact with them for over a year There was no point they refused to provide a refund in instances

I bought a ten week old puppy from Thinschmidt (Gonzo and Helen) and he is just turning two years old. He has a fabulous temperament and can go anywhere with me, such as off leash hiking, Macy's, the bank, my office, other people's homes, etc. I opted to train him myself and go to their group training classes which worked out great. He is smart and highly trainable. He is my fourth shepherd and although I have not had him x-rayed, I know he doesn't have dysplasia, since I am well versed in the symptoms. My first two shepherds each had elbow dysplasia and one had to be put down for degenerative myelopathy and my third had a severe overbite. Sometimes congenital defects pop up through no fault of the breeder. Every purchaser of a large breed dog should inform the breeder of any congenital defects regardless of a warranty so that the breeder can be informed and act accordingly to eliminate the defect from their bloodlines. Temperament was the most important thing to me and Thinschmidt delivered. I would definitely buy another puppy from them and I would recommend them for training help as well. My dog is now doing nose/odor work and is an enthusiastic participant. I look forward to many years with this dog.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/08/22) */
We received the first email from [redacted] on September 10, 2013, with concerns of their puppy's health issues.
After taking some time to review their information, we responded back to them on 9/13/14. (Please see attached email...

correspondence).
We wrote out the required procedures listed on our Puppy Sales Agreement which they had already agreed to and signed on the day they took their puppy home. (Please see attached Sales Agreement, page 2, under Warranty).
Our warranty states that we would need two letters from veterinarians licensed in California, to put in writing that the dog has a genetic defect and is unfit for sale. We explained to them, once we receive these two letters, we would be willing to give them a full refund for the purchase price of the dog, even though the sales agreement calls for exchange only. We were doing our best to help compensate for their situation. We gave them our fax number and advised them that we would refund their credit card as soon as we received those two signed vet letters. These letters are also required by California state law regarding genetic issues with the sale of puppies. (Article 1)commencing with Section 122045) of Chapter 5 of Part of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code).
We received another email from [redacted] on 9/16/14. (Please see attached email correspondence). He specifically states that he was working with other veterinarians to obtain the information we asked for. He also states in that email that he wanted to keep the dog and not return him, even though it is clearly stated in our sales agreement that the dog would need to be returned immediately. He chose to keep the dog and asked for reimbursement for the purchase price of the dog.
We responded with an email dated 9/19/14. (Please see attached email correspondence). We stated our concern and empathy they had for their dog 'Boss'. We agreed to reimburse the purchase price of the dog and allowed them to keep him, per their request. Again, we asked for proper documentation to be faxed to us and once we received that, we would process their reimbursement.
On 9/24/2014, received another email from [redacted] (please see attached email correspondence). He had attached two vet letters, neither one of them stating that the dog had a definite genetic defect and was unfit for sale. The could have happened while the puppy was in their care as they took him home at just 8 weeks of age. Also, only one vet letter was signed, the other was not.
We felt we needed more clarification, so we exercised our rights to have a second opinion by a vet of our choice, as stated in Ca. Health & Safety Code- section 122045.
On 9/28/2014, we sent an email to [redacted] (please see attached email correspondence), explaining that we had sent his vet letter and finding to our vet, we were awaiting for his report, and that we would contact Mr. [redacted] as soon as we heard back from our ve.
On 9/30/2014, we sent a final email to [redacted] explaining our decision. (please see attached email correspondence).
We had called their vet to discuss their findings. We were surprised to hear that their vet had already performed surgery on their dog 'Boss' on 9/11/2013. This was done without our knowledge or approval, and this was not mentioned in all the previous emails.
Not only did he not follow procedures clearly set in place in our sales agreement and explained to him several times, but we did not have a chance to exercise our right to a second opinion, nor had a chance to approve or disapprove 'reasonable vet fees', also stated in Ca. Health & Safety Code, as we never had a choice in the matter.
We feel we have been more than 'fair" to help our client through this difficult situation. We understood their concerns and the emotional bond they had with their dog. This is why we tried our best to offer them 3 different solutions:
1). We offered to exchange the dog for another dog.
2). We offered to refund the entire purchase price with the return of the dog.
3). We offered to reimburse the full price and allow him to keep the dog.
Unfortunately, our client was not honest about the un-approved surgery which was already done on the dog, which was before any of the email correspondence on proper procedures which would have need to be followed. This caused all warranties to be void.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Assertive K-9 Training
Final Business Response /* (4000, 7, 2014/08/22) */
(attached: Sales Agreement)
Consumer Response /* (4200, 14, 2014/11/13) */
I have reviewed Thinschmidt German ShepherdslAssertive K-9 Training's (TGS) response, and do not feel that they have satisfied my claim. They selectively chose emails and responses that did not portray the entire picture, made false claims about the 'coverage' of their agreement, application of California's Health and Safety Code Section 122045-122110, and the level to which they have tried to help.
I have attached all emails between TGS and my husband for the Revdex.com's review. I will lay out a brief summary of the emails below:
I called TGS when my German Shepherd Dog (GSD) on 8/612013, and shared his diagnosis of Fragmented Coronoid Process (elbow dysplasia) with member, [redacted] l can provide proof of this call from obtained phone records. GSD was well under 1 yr. of age at this time. [redacted] tried to convince me that this lameness was probably growing pains, as their lines do not have dysplasia and asked us to seek another opinion We did.
9/10/2013 to TGS: Email contained details of GSD's identical diagnosis from 3 different veterinarians, their contact information, the recommended treatment for his dysplasia, and a request for reimbursement for GSD to help cover future medical expenses.
9/13/2013 from TGS: Email stated that they would be willing to reimburse us for our GSD's purchase price if he is returned to their care and we provided "written and signed documentation from both vets stating genetic issues and the dog is unfit for sale". This is not required under CA Law (reference 10/7/2013 email).
9/16/2013 to TGS: Email stated that we were working to collect the required documentation. This is not something given at a veterinary visit and we thus had to go back and ask each veterinarian to express their diagnosis in an official letter, This obviously takes time. It also stated: The means too much to us to give back. The purchase contract states that an additional option allows us to 'keep the dog and receive a reimbursement for reasonable veterinarian fees up to 150 percent of the original purchase price.' This can be verified in the attached agreement as well as the CA Law mentioned above.., related veterinary fees are well beyond 150% of his purchase price, and as we said before, we are not trying to take advantage of you or your kindness. We only ask for a refund of the purchase price to help cover some of those costs."
9/19/2013 from TGS: Email stated that they understood that we did not want to return the GSD, they would like to help us, and that the "warranty timefrarne is valid", They also once again requested the documentation.
9/24/2013 to TGS: We provided the requested documentation and apologized for the delay, but one of the veterinarians was on vacation. We can provide these letters if you so desire.
9/28/2013 from TGS: They sent provided information to their veterinarian for review.
10/2/2013: from TGS: Stated that they had reviewed information and spoke with the veterinarians we had seen. They were very upset the surgery was completed on 9/11/2014. TGS stated that we had not followed "proper procedure" or the law.
10/7/2013 to TGS: This email clearly stated how we did follow "proper procedure" and the law. We did provided documentation in the required time frame, and provided two possible steps for moving
forward. This email clearly lays out the fact that we have explicitly followed their agreement and the CA Law.
10/12/2013 from TGS: "We have received and reviewed your email. After careful consideration and for the well being of... we have decided to honor a full refund of the purchase price of $[redacted] providing you agree to our terms." Email laid out terms, one of which was having Yelp reviews written by someone else removed from the website. Here, TGS is again not abiding by the Law, or even their own agreement. and is using concessions to try to close the dispute.
10/12/2013 from TGS: Sent another email asking for an additional Yelp review to be removed from a family member.
10/12/2013 from TGS: Third email of the same day... sent another email asking for an additional Yelp review to be removed from a family member.
10/12/2013 from TGS: Fourth email of the same day... [redacted] attacks my family. She states that our "integrity is questionable" and the following: "Do you remember, we are all created equal. What your family is stating is so far from the truth, its quite sad and a terrible way to behave." We had been nothing but prompt, professional and truthful with her and TGS the entire time.
10/15/2013 from TGS: Reminded us that family reviews needed to be removed, set an ultimatum, and demanded that we complied.
10/16/2013 from TGS: TGS took back the offer for a refund made in their 10/12/2014 email because we had not provided XRay proof of our GSD's genetic issue and because we had not complied with their ultimatum. However, the XRay proof was provided in the very first email to TGS and our response (below) was made within their two day demand.
10/16/2013 to TGS: Our reply to TGS stated, "Since I am replying within 4 days from your original 12 October email, considering it took you (TGS) 5 days to respond to my last email, and considering that I am replying within the 2 day window set by your 15 October email, I believe this to be an acceptable response time... I was personally unaware of their existence. They were written by others, not at my request, and reflect the opinions of those who wrote them... As for the review mentioned in your first 12 October email, I will not ask for that to be removed. l do not have a legal right to demand that it be removed. Plus, that review has nothing to do with... or anything we have discussed and thus will not be considered part of this conflict.
Now, we are willing to agree to the terms of your first 12 October email as outlined in a Confidentiality Agreement, with exception of the 3rd point for reasons stated above. Attached you will find a Confidentiality Agreement for you to review and sign."
10/23/2013 to TGS: Asking them to reply or we will assume they do not wish to pursue their previous offer.
10/25/2013 from TGS: They are still demanding all Yelp reviews be removed and that "no additional slander be made by (me), (my) family or (my) acquaintances now and in the future." Both of these requests are morally and ethically wrong and the second is nearly impossible for me to control. 11/6/2013 to TGS: A 4th vet diagnosis of Fragmented Coronoid Process from a CA Board Certified Veterinary Surgeon was provided to them.
As the above summary and attachments can prove, TGS has been extremely unprofessional, (even unethical at times), inconsistent with their responses, and did not follow through on the promises of their own warranty or the mandates of California Law. Plus, even if we hadn't followed their agreement, CA Contract Law states that you cannot sign away the rights of CA Law. Thus, the CA Health and Safety Code Section 122045-122110 supersedes their agreement (it's even attached as the last page of their agreement), We have tried resolving this issue on our own and have been forced to reach out to a lawyer as our last resort. Recently, they have emailed us again asking for us to provide "what would satisfy our needs" to end the conflict. We provided them with our response that contained a fair compromise (much less than the CA Law affords) as we would like to end the conflict as well. It has been over one week and we have not heard a response from TGS. We have also noticed that TGS has posted a comment on one of the many negative reviews on their Yelp site (also attached). In this review, [redacted] (a member of TGS) incorrectly links our review with 2 other negative reviews, claiming they are one-in-the-same. They are not. We have no idea who the other authors are. She proceeds to state our names and our current state of residence. This is very personal information she has posted and reveals yet another lapse in professionalism and ethics by TGS. She proceeds to state that she has posted this as information for the author's sake and will remove it in 1 day. It was posted for 12 days, and edited to another version posted for 1 day. Obviously her intentions are not as honorable as she would like to make them seem.
In the end, we have gone above and beyond their requirements by providing a diagnosis from 4 different Board Certified Veterinarians (2 of which whom specialize in the field of surgery related to elbow dysplasia), All of the reports had exactly the same diagnosis, Fragmented Coronoid Process, which is a hereditary disease. We have provided them with all of the Xrays and information they have asked for. We have remained professional and have strictly stuck to stating the facts. TGS has offered a refund and rejected it, on their accord, numerous times. They even tried to use the refund for personal gain to clean their image on Yelp. TGS refuses to follow CA Law or even their sales agreement that they reference numerous times. They have been unfair, unprofessional, rude and unethical. I firmly do not believe they meet the standards for a great or even good rating from the Revdex.com,
If you need any further information to review this issue please do not hesitate to ask. I have also attached my Yelp review that was posted on 8/312014 to provide a little further information on our process with TGS.
Thank you very much for your time!
Thanks, [redacted] O'Donnell
Business Response /* (4000, 18, 2014/11/17) */
Dear [redacted],
I spoke with you yesterday concerning the re-opening of a complaint filed against us from last year.
Complaint # XXXXXXXX.
[redacted]
We have looked over the additional information Ms [redacted] provided; re: additional vet reports.
California state law requires the breeder to receive a signed vet report stating that the dog has a genetic defect and is unfit for sale. Once the breeder receives this signed letter, we have a right under California Health & Safety code to have a second opinion, through a vet of our choice. If both vets agree the dog does have a genetic defect and deems the dog unfit for sale, we then follow the proper procedures for compensating the client.
However, Ms [redacted] did not follow proper procedures and had surgery performed on the dog before we received any documentation from her vet. We also did not get a chance to exercise our right to a second opinion through a vet of our choice.
Even though the client did not follow proper procedures in handling her dogs health issues, we are agreeing to give her a full refund for the purchase price of the dog,
$2900. We will issue her a refund to her credit card for the amount of $2900. within 10 business days.
We can appreciate and sympathize with our clients disappointment and frustration over her pets health issue. We commend her for taking such good care of her dog, and getting him the care he needs.
Sincerely,
Assertive K-9 Training
XXX-XXX-XXXX
Consumer Response /* (4200, 20, 2014/11/21) */
Though the offer is less than legally allowed and less than I asked for in reply to Thinschmidt German Shepherds/Assertive K-9 Training's (TGS) 30 October, 2013 email, my husband and I are willing to accept their offer of a refund of $2900. This is purely in the interest of attempting to resolve a lasting issue. I request that TGS not try to refund the credit card they have on file as it no longer exists. Instead, I ask that they mail me a check. TGS can email me for the address.
TGS has since emailed me on 17 November, 2013 asking me to contact their office by phone. I replied, stating that email is my only form of communication for the near future and requested that they express their thoughts in an email. My husband and I have yet to hear back from them. Since TGS has retracted their offer before and concerning the fact that we are awaiting a response, I request to keep this case open until the refund is successfully processed.
I would also like to address certain points in TGS's response. TGS was provided a total of 3 letters and 1 legal record of diagnosis from 4 Board Certified Veterinarians as well as 1 report from a Board Certified Veterinary Radiologist, (who is also a Diplomat in the American College of Veterinary Radiology). The 3 letters were signed and all of the documents confirmed the presence of a Fragmented Coronoid Process (elbow dysplasia) in my German Shepherd Dog (GSD). TGS received the first signed letter from Dr. [redacted] as an attachment to our 10 September, 2013 email. They received the second signed letter from Dr. [redacted] and the legal record of diagnosis from Dr. [redacted] as attachments to our 24 September 2013 email. TGS received our final signed letter from Dr. [redacted] in our 6 November, 2013 email. This final letter also contained the report from a Board Certified radiologist that read Boss's second set of x-rays. Furthermore, the California Health and Safety Code Section 122045-122110, is the law concerning the sale of dogs by breeders. The law does not require the veterinary letters to specifically state "unfit for sale." The law does state that if a vet determines
"that the dog has a congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the dog, or that requires, or is likely in the future to require, hospitalization or nonelective surgical procedures, the dog shall be considered unfit for sale" (Section 122070)
My GSD has been diagnosed by 4 separate Board Certified Veterinarians with a Fragmented Coronoid Process (elbow dysplasia), a hereditary condition, and has been hospitalized for it. Thus under California Law my GSD shall be considered unfit for sale and it is not necessary for each letter to state this.
TGS's claim of not receiving any documentation from the vets before the surgery is also false. They received all of my GSD's x-rays (2 sets taken by 2 separate Board Certified veterinarians) as well as the diagnosis and signed letter from Dr. [redacted] on 10 September, 2013. The recommended surgery was completed after this email.
Lastly, TGS did get a chance to exercise their right to a second opinion. After receiving the rest of the documentation, (all of which reflected diagnosis and condition of my GSD before surgery), in my 24 September, 2013 email, they forwarded all information to their vet. By forwarding these documents to their vet for review, TGS exercised their search for a second opinion.
Thus, I have followed the proper procedures in handling my GSD's health issue.
We look forward to the completed resolution and email communication from TGS.
Thank you and have a great day!
Thanks,
[redacted]
Business Response /* (1000, 23, 2014/12/04) */
Please find the replacement check for our client, [redacted]
Can you let us know when it is mailed out to him?
Thanks so much for all your help on this.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Assertive K-9 Training

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/08/11) */
This response is in regards to a complaint that was filed with your office, regarding a dispute between our (Client) and our training facility Assertive K-9; (DBA) Thinschmidt German Shepherds. The complaint is in regards to purchase...

fees and training charged for (REMY) an 18 month old female German shepherd. The original purchase price was established and agreed upon at $3172.00 with an additional training package purchased at the agreed upon price of $2595. At the time of the purchase, the client filled out and signed the original sales agreement that outlined the purchase price. The sales agreement in two locates throughout the contract both in bold and italicized letters states clearly there are no refunds of any kind. The client signed the contract prior to the collection of Remy. Additionally, the client was provided a complete copy of the signed agreement. A complete copy of the signed agreement along with the receipt is provided for your review.
On September 22, 2014, our client came to our facility and collected her new puppy, Remy. The dog at the time of the collection was a happy and health 18 month old, playful with no dietary restrictions. Moreover, Remy was of sound height and weight for a female German shepherd of this age. Remy was at a weight of approximately 60 pounds, with a full coat and good pigmentation in her eyes, her ears were fully developed and standing erect as is appropriate for this age of female German Shepherd. A full-grown female German shepherd should be on average of a weight between 65 - 72 pounds. Prior to the client leaving our facility with her new dog, she was provided a lengthy, on average two-hour presentation on the conduct and training of her new puppy. At the time of the presentation the client never made any indication that the Remy seemed to be slightly underweight or made any notations of alleged issues with the dog, she had purchased. Furthermore, the client is provided with a complete training video to take home to better understand what to expect from the dog being introduced into the home. The training staff additionally goes over the feeding instruction for the dog as they are currently being feed at the kennel. All our clients, and this client included are instructed to maintain this feed regiment for at least 4 weeks to allow the dog to acclimate to the new home and surrounds. A copy of the agreement has been attached for your review.
In regards to the training packaged that was purchased along with Remy, The training clearly outlines the expectations of the training and what the new owner can expect from their new dog at the time they take ownership. Again, on this agreement it is clearly stated throughout the contract in both bold and italicized letters that there are no refunds or transfers of training fees. Additionally, it states in the contract that the client accepts and agrees to these terms, where she initials once and signed at the end of the contract. The client signed and agreed to the terms of her agreement of her own free will and under no duress. A copy of the agreement has been attached for your review.
After the client left our facility with her new puppy Remy, it appears she had no understanding of or failed to follow the instructions of the training staff that indicated the dog would need at least 4 weeks to acclimate to the new surrounds. Yes, many dogs acclimate faster, we say four weeks to make sure there are no new developmental issues with the dog in the new home either behavioral or in regards to training. Four weeks, allows for a good amount of time to see any changes in the animal. In addition to training and behavioral issues, there might be issues with the appetite of the animal. Many dogs when they come to the kennel or return home from the kennel will not eat. This is not a long-term issue but simply a stress issues and the dogs return to normal in a few days. However, there are those occasions where it takes the dogs longer to adjust; this adjustment again is not abnormal.
As stated by the client, only ten days after having Remy in her home she takes the dog to the vet for fear Remy is starving. Remy, is clearly making an adjustment to her new home that as stated prior is taking a bit longer than normal. In many cases, even following the feeding instructions as provided by the kennel staff will not make the dog eat in her new surroundings. The client caused additional issues with the dogs feeding by attempting to hand feed her. This form of force feeding of a dog, who is clearly attempting to make an adjustment in her new home; only causes additional stress on the dog and she will withdraw even further, and lose her appetite. We can make the same assessment of humans, when we are stressed or making a new adjustment to life changes we do not eat.
The Veterinary evaluation of Remy on October 1, 2014 showed that there were no issues with the animal. It appears the animal received several shots and no indication from the vet that Remy was underweight. At the time of this visit, Remy was weighed and she was a health weight at 60 pounds, well within her weight for her age. The client not happy with initial results, returned to the vet a second time on October 10, 2014 nine days after the initial visit. During the second visit, there were some additional tests completed on the Remy. X-rays were completed to make sure she had no issues with her digestive track, she was examined for illness and a radiology exam was completed, finally Remy was again weighed and was still well within her normal weight of 58.90 pounds a loss of 1.1 pounds in a week. The vet was unable to determine any illness with Remy, yet nine days later and 1.1 pounds he now determined Remy to be underweight. The clear sign of weight loss could have been from additionally stress of force feeding, increased activity and still limited intake of food. There are a number of issues which could have contributed to the weight loss, however none of them detrimental to the overall health of the animal. A copy of the vet report has been provided for your review.
The client has made accusations that we as breeders have sold unhealthy dogs. Accusations that is not supported with any facts from her own vet. California Health and Safety Code 122070 (a) states "If a licensed veterinarian states in writing that within 15 days after the purchaser has taken physical possession of a dog following the sale by a breeder, the dog has become ill due to any illness or disease that existed in the dog on or before delivery of the dog to the purchaser. Alternatively, if within one year after the purchaser has taken physical possession of the dog after the sale by a breeder, a veterinarian licensed in this state states in writing that the dog has a congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the dog. Or, that requires, or is likely in the future to require, hospitalization or nonselective surgical procedures, the dog shall be considered unfit for sale." There was nothing from the client or her own vet that indicated after two visits that there was anything wrong with Remy. In fact the only thing the vet and the client were able to make an argument for was that the dog lost 1.1 pounds in a week and yet she was still well within her normal weight for her age 58.9 pounds.
Furthermore, the client is asking for reimbursement for fees charged for the sale and training of Remy yet she violated her own complaint by not following California Health and Safety Code 122080 (a) (b) that states the following. "To obtain the remedies provided for in Section 122070, the purchaser shall substantially comply with all of the following requirements: (a) Notify the breeder as soon as possible but no later than five days of the diagnosis by a veterinarian licensed in this state of a medical or health problem, including a congenital or hereditary condition and of the name and telephone number of the veterinarian providing the diagnosis. (b) Return the dog to the breeder, in the case of illness or congenital or hereditary condition, along with a written statement from a veterinarian licensed in this state, stating the dog to be unfit for purchase due to illness, a congenital or hereditary condition, or the presence of symptoms of a contagious or infectious disease, that existed on or before delivery of the dog to the purchaser, and that adversely affects the health of the dog. The purchaser shall return the dog along with a copy of the veterinarian's statement as soon as possible but no later than five days of receipt of the veterinarian's statement." In this instance there is nothing from the vet in regards to health concerns for the animal and this was confirmed with a complete examination of the animal on October 10, 2014 by the clients own vet that had seen the animal twice in a matter of nine days. Again as stated, earlier the only statement of the vet was that the dog was underweight at 58.9 pounds down only 1.1 pounds from the week prior. Hardly a fair and accurate diagnosis. Additionally, Remy was not returned to us until November 5, 2014 almost a month after our client had the dog in the vet twice searching for a reason to cause issues when there clearly was nothing wrong with the dog, except the owner herself.
On November 5, 2014 our kennel against our own contract, and for complete wellbeing and safety of our dogs we graciously took Remy back from her current owner. At the time, we took Remy, back from her owner in a matter of days she was eating with no issues and seemed to have returned to her joyful and playful nature with everyone that encountered her at the kennel. Attached is a photo of Remy three days after being returned to the kennel, it is clear she is healthy and of sound weight. Additionally, attached is a photo of our client with Remy and again remy looks to be of sound weight. Again, there is nothing that can be found with Remy that would indicate she is an unhealthy dog.
After taking Remy back from her owner, an owner that stated she had a connection with the dog who was the love of her family's life who "could not endure the heartache of watching her waste away and with a heavy heart made the painful decision to return Remy." Upon the return of Remy, our kennel staff worked with her to make sure she was fit to be re-homed. On December 15, 2014, Remy was placed back on our company website for sale. However, she had be renamed to "Naomi" with the American Kennel Association (a copy of rename had been attached for your review) she had the same registration number and description including date of birth. Between the re-launch date of December 15, 2014 and Naomi's sale date of February 10, 2015 to her new owner, the client of this complaint revisited our website and informed us that she was in fact interested in Naomi. How can a client that stated a dog was the love of her life and that of her family not recognize her own dog on a website. The simple fact is Remy never got comfortable in the client's home. There was nothing noted by the vet after two visits indicating illness, and finally the client was not able to recognize her own dog after months of spending time with her prior to the return. These simple facts lead to only one conclusion; the client failed to make a connection with the dog and in this frustration attempted to make issues in the form of false accusation and threats to our facility; adversely affecting our past, present and future clients and the business in its totality.
To address the issues of this client, and the alleged sale of Lula as a replacement dog. There was never any formal agreement that Lula was to be sold to this client and in fact, we don't hold dogs for potential buyers without the representation of a deposit. This client has made accusations that we sell unhealthy dogs, yet she continues to want a dog from us and a complete contradiction of her accusations. The client had a dog that was not eating and look at the issues it has created. Lula, will not ever be sold; we take great pride in the sale of and the protection of the dogs and our clients. With that being said, Lula who is not one of our breeding but an import from German was determined to have slight issues with her elbows, which could later develop into greater mobility problems, but that cannot be determined until she is full-grown. Therefore, to answer the client, Lula was not sold to spite you, better yet to protect you, even in lieu of all the all the negativity and false accusations you have raged against our organization.
A full refund was at one time addressed with the client and she refused the offer. After the refusal of the refund by the client herself for her dog Remy, the client became greedy and now wanted a full refund for the dog and the training. After a period of time and not being able to come to a reasonable agreement with the client, she continued to rage war against our facility with her threats of lawsuits and complaint with the Revdex.com and her thwarted threats of making her anger known to all by addressing her issues with our facility on Yelp. Because of the sole actions of the client throughout this process, her clear disregard for the contract in which she signed and agreed to the conditions of no refunds. It is our inclination, to honor the contract that was signed by the client of her own free will knowing there were no refunds or exchanges of any kind at the time of purchase.
In conclusion, Naomi (Aka Remy) was sold to a family in Arizona on February 10, 2015. Attached is an email from the new owner that indicates the dog is great, full of energy and yet she still has an eating issue. This dog that just needed some time to show her lifestyle needs and her needs are not of eating huge amounts of food to maintain a healthy and active life style. The owner of his dog currently has figured a way to maintain a balance for the dog that is health and she is thriving. The current owners have taken Naomi to the vet several times and there are still no medical issues.
While we understand, any issue with your animal that we cannot determine or understand is a hard adjustment and one that can be filled with fear and uncertainty. That being said, we take great care in making sure the animal and the new owner are provided all necessary information and training to assure this adjustment is a positive one, which will unite the dog and the owner in a positive manner at the inception of their relationship. Additionally, we take great pride in the services we have been providing to our clients and community for the better part of thirty years. Ms. [redacted] and her dog (Remy) like all our clients were provided with the greatest care and professionalism, which I demand from my staff to all clients that afford us the opportunity to provide a service in a very competitive field.
Thank you for your timely attention to this matter.
Respectfully Submitted
[redacted]
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 17, 2015/09/09) */
[redacted]Document Attached[redacted]
The breeders Revdex.com response to my complaint is quite elaborate, however, her recounting of events is rife with misrepresentations and inaccuracies. She attempts to portray me as hysterical, ignorant and incompetent. I intend to show that my complaint is valid and that the refund which I seek, and was previously offered, is indeed justified.
The purchase price for Remy is stated as $3,172 but, in fact, was $3,672 which included a deposit of $500 paid on August 4,2014. The breeder's attached records to her response confirm both transactions. She states that I purchased the training package of $2595 implying this was optional, when it was actually a non-negotiable part of the total cost for the dog. This was training that occurred when she was a puppy and was paid by her original owner as well. I assume it was also subsequently paid by the third owner who followed me. So, it appears that the breeder was paid three times for the same service. I did sign a contract, as the breeder states, that there were no refunds. However, I naturally believe I was purchasing a 'teenage' dog who was still growing and would put on weight, as was represented to me. The breeder asserts that, at the time of the purchase, I received a two-hour presentation and also never expressed concern about Remy's weight status. This is blatantly false. I spoke to both [redacted] and [redacted]. [redacted], her daughter, was the manager at the time but I am told has since left the business. I also spoke with [redacted], [redacted]'s brother, who functions as a trainer. There was no two-hour presentation on conduct and training although I was given a notebook with information regarding care that I have referred to often, as I am always eager to become a better owner. These definitive statements are surprising since she was never present during any visits to the Thinschmidt facility. In fact, I have never met or spoken with her.
Next, I am accused of overzealous behavior when taking Remy to the vet soon after bringing her home. Although I did not wish to take her to the vet so soon, incredibly, her rabies vaccination was about to expire. Since it takes up to 2 weeks to confer immunity, I felt it responsible to address this as soon as possible. I must admit surprise that this was not already accomplished while under the breeder's care, especially in light of the cost of the dog. Although concerned about her weight, it was not initially a major topic of conversation with the vet. I knew, contrary to the breeder's insinuations, that she was in an adjustment phase to her new home and surroundings. We returned to the vet at a later point when it was clear that she was only eating a fraction of the normal amount needed to thrive and grow. This was especially perplexing as I was following exact instructions on feeding from [redacted]. After Remy started losing weight instead of gaining it, the vet recommended some tests to rule out a pathological cause.
The breeder states that I caused additional stress by hand feeding. In truth, this only happened a couple of times near the end of her five weeks with us in an attempt to get at least a little food in her. This clearly was not an adjustment or connection problem as Remy seemed to love us and played happily with my male dog. In fact, three separate owners have now had the exact same problem with Remy which is substantiated by the breeder's own statement and attached documentation. This is poignantly expressed in the email from the latest owner in a plea for advice and assistance from Thinschmidt regarding the her eating issue. They too were concerned enough to seek answers from a vet.
It is put forth that I did not follow time requirments in order to receive 'remedies' for my purchase. In fact, I was in contact with [redacted] during this entire episode. We cared for Remy and wanted to give her more than adequate time to adjust and, hopefully, to start to eat normally. Eventually, she advised me to bring Remy back for a full credit on another dog. I felt pressure since [redacted] said it was a limited time offer and we needed to decide as it would only become more difficult for everyone as we became more attached to her. As I said, I never had any interactions or discussions with [redacted].
The next point to address is Naomi. This was an extraordinary revelation to discover from her statement that Remy had been posted for sale on their site under another name. Who could have imagined that? I do remember inquiring about a dog named Naomi and was told that she had been sold to someone in Arizona. The breeder accuses me of not recognizing my own dog and this does sound incredible. Luckily, pictures were attached to her Revdex.com response which I believe exonerate me. She looks like quite a different dog with a wider face and somewhat different coloring and it had only been a few months since she was with us. My family and I had a hard time believing this was Remy. I find it so strange that nothing was said to me at the time. Why was this kept secret?
I don't know which was more shocking, the previous story about Remy/Naomi or the revelation about Lula, whom I was interested in purchasing months after Remy with my credit from the breeder. Of course, at this time I was still unaware of Remy's difficult history with her previous owner and what was ahead with Lula. Thinschmidt has some beautiful dogs and I liked the fact they had training which was how I rationalizaed such a high price. The breeder states now that Lula would never be sold due to joint problems with her elbows yet she was posted on their site for sale. Upon meeting her, I asked [redacted] why she was being sold. I was told she was not going to be used for breeding as intended. When asked why, he did not know and explained that [redacted] was the person who decided which dogs were to be sold. I never accused the breeder of doing anything to 'spite me' as she says, but merely felt it unprofessional to sell her the very next day without warning. She states that they require a deposit to hold a dog. But, Thinschmidt not only had my deposit, they had full payment for a dog! She now contends they were protecting me by not selling her but it begs the question- why was she listed for sale at all? And why was she still listed as available on their site as recently as today? Why was it determined the very next day after I met her not to sell her? They knew about the elbow issues then, did they not? Why did they not tell the truth at that time?
My conclusion is as follows: I cannot speak about all Thinschmidt dogs but it's amazing that both dogs in question that I have had contact with have health issues. This was belatedly confirmed in Remy's case and later discovered in Lula's. Throughout my interaction with Thinschmidt they have intentionally deceived me and have caused pain and suffering which could have been avoided by being honest. Given the breeder's illuminating statement, which I believe is actually self-incriminating, it would be impossible to conduct any further business with them. Unfortunately, they still have my $6,267 and I have no dog.
I am willing to swear in a court of law to the veracity of my statements and look forward to doing so at the earliest opportunity.

Final Business Response /* (1000, 20, 2015/10/13) */
October 13, 2015
Revdex.com
[redacted] W. Shaw Avenue
Ste. [redacted]
[redacted], California [redacted]
Ref: Client Complaint
Complaint ID: [redacted]
Attn: [redacted]
This response is to address the final offer for payment to the client in the above addressed matter. As discussed in prior documentation there have been offers made to the client in an effort to resolve this matter, however, the client has failed to accept any of the offers presented to her. In fact, each offer that has been presented the client has resulted in a demand of additional money. In a believed effort to satisfy her alleged losses of a dog, which she voluntarily returned to the breeder where there was not a single issue noted with the animal at the time of return, except the reported loss of 1.1 pounds that was even identified by the clients vet on two separate occasions.
Since the start of this tragic situation for the dog (Remy), the client, and our business there seems to be no possible resolution the client will be in favor of accepting. As a lack of her favorable acceptance to any of the offers presented to her, she has taken it upon herself to make many attempts to cause financial difficulties for our business. Her efforts have included negative remarks on Yelp where the client blasted our business and all of our alleged wrongdoing, taking no accountability for her own actions in this process. Today, because of her efforts in writing negative reviews we can accurately account for the business losses, which were a direct result of her words, and misguided truths about the integrity of our business and the quality of the dogs that we place in hands of our clients. Additionally, we have had to retain legal counsel in preparation of the threatened impending lawsuits the client has stated she will file against our business if she is not paid the amount she is demanding of $5767.00. The client was made aware at the time of the sale that training will never be refunded and she signed the documents to that affect.
To date, the client in her efforts of filing false and misleading yelp reviews she has cost the business approximately $20,000 dollars in documented direct sales as a direct result of her words. Additionally, she had cost the business, approximately $4200.00 in attorney fees to respond to these complaints and address additional matters in lieu of having a lawsuit filed by the client as she continues to threaten via email and certified mailed letters to the office of the business.
Because, of the continued losses to the business that seems to be a direct result of the client and her actions with negative reviews on yelp; threats of law suits that force our business to retain legal counsel to defend our business. Any refund that was willing to be paid to the client at one time, and additionally, her outright refusal of the refund offered to her, now was needed, and has been reallocated to defend against her barrage of negative publicity and threats of legal action. However, in an effort to attempt a good faith effort our office is willing to pay for the veterinary bills acquired by the client. Where the veterinarian found nothing wrong with the dog both on October 1, 2014 for $118.00 dollars and the second veterinary bill acquired on October 10, 2014 for $495.00 for a complete total of $613.00. This will be the final offer made in regards to this situation, as we have exhausted all efforts to satisfy the client, unfortunately resulting in negative results.
Respectfully Submitted,
[redacted] for [redacted]
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 22, 2015/10/16) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Oomplaint ID: 89064211
The following is my response to the last letter from a representative for the breeder. I have never asked for additional money, rather the amount has consistently been $6,267 which I originally paid for Remy in July 2014. Contrary to their statement, I did accept the offer of a full refund in July of this year but, unfortunately, this offer was rescinded the very next day and the breeder then offered only the partial sum of $3,672. This led to my subsequent efforts through emails, certified letters, and eventually the Revdex.com to resolve this matter. Their need, as stated, to retain attorneys is a little puzzling as the only legal process I have alluded to is small claims court where no attorneys are allowed. The total cost to me so far has been $15.94 for two certified letters. The fee to file with small claims court would be $75 I am told. There is a complaint from the breeder about the piling up of legal fees. Surely, it would be more cost effective to reimburse me for the $6,267 rather than accrue thousands of dollars in legal fees.
I don't have lawyers or legal advisors available to me to write intimidating letters. I am just one individual seeking justice. As a nurse, I recently had the experience of testifying in court and, fortunately, that case was ruled in favor of the hospital. While it is not a pleasant experience, it is very gratifying to be able to tell the truth under oath. In this case that truth is this:
1) Remy was purchased in good faith and loved and cared for exactly as instructed.
2) In spite of the fact that I was promised she ate a normal, healthy amount for a growing dog her size (2 cups twice a day), she never consumed even half that and on occasion nothing at all.
3) Veterinary evaluation and testing was sought.
4) After several weeks with continuing eating issues and the encouragement of [redacted] (the manager at the time), I brought Remy back to the breeder.
5) I was given a document for full credit for another trained dog for the original sum of $6,267.
6) Months later I found one of their available dogs I wanted, the very next day I was told she was sold. Only months later from breeder statements in this Revdex.com process find that she, in fact, was not sold but had joint issues.
7) Only then did I discover a litany of complaints against Thinschmidt German Shepherds which included the revelation about Remy's history of the same eating, health issues from the original owner which had been completely denied by the breeder at the time of purchase.
8) A full refund was offered by [redacted] in July 2015, of which I have a recording.
9) The next day only a partial refund was offered.
10) The offer is now $618 for incurred vet costs.
11) I have no dog and no money.
It is stated that my comment on Yelp has resulted in the loss of revenue represented to be $20,000. My one comment recounting my experience with Thinschmidt was merely the latest of several complaints on Yelp and Ripoff Report citing similar situations and difficulties resolving problems with this company.
In an effort to move toward resolution, however, I would like to propose a compromise. I will accept the kind offer of $618 for veterinary reimbursement, which was never included in the original amount requested from the breeder. I will happily subtract that sum from the amount of $3,672 which was previously offered on July 15, 2015. This is a reduction of almost $2,600 from the original amount paid to you for a dog last year. If we entered into arbitration through the court, both sides would be expected to compromise, which I am willing to do. But, if this case is unresolved through the efforts of the Revdex.com and moves forward to small claims, I will be asking for the full refund that was originally offered and I truly believe is rightfully due to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]