Dog Owner Sues PetSmart, Claims Staff Suffocated Pet During Nail Clipping

A normal grooming appointment at a PetSmart became an emergency disaster — one which resulted within the loss of life of a pooch … in accordance with a brand new lawsuit.

Ashley “AJ” Ross is suing the pet retailer retailer over the 2020 loss of life of her poodle, Kobe — which occurred after she dropped off her pooch for a nail clipping at a PetSmart in Pittsburgh, PA.

Within the lawsuit, she lays blame instantly on the toes of the shop’s staff — and provides, the shop’s personal surveillance video is probably the most compelling proof supporting her case.

The footage is hard to observe. You see Ross drop the canine off with the workers, having already positioned a muzzle on its mouth, after which go away. The employees then take it to the again and elevate it onto a desk.

That is the place issues get wild … it seems the workers put 2 completely different harnesses round Kobe’s neck — one from the highest and one from the underside — seemingly to maintain the canine in place whereas they attempt to work on its paws.

Kobe thrashes round, they usually ultimately tip the poodle over on its facet for simpler entry … at the least that is what Ross claims in her swimsuit.

Quickly sufficient, the canine goes limp and the employees attempt waking it up, to no avail. Ross says when she returned a mere 10 minutes later, she found her canine was useless — and she or he believes the best way the PetSmart staff harnessed Kobe in the course of the nail clipping triggered the canine to lose consciousness and die.

In response to paperwork, Ashley claims PetSmart has allowed this to occur to different pets through the years — upwards of 47 have allegedly been killed by PetSmart groomers since 2009 — and now she needs damages.

A rep for PetSmart tells TMZ … “All of us are heartbroken by and really sorry for the lack of Kobe. Following this horrible accident in 2020, we instantly launched an inside investigation and cooperated with the authorities concerned. In response, we terminated the associates who violated our pet security insurance policies and didn’t meet our excessive requirements of care.”