Hundreds of displaced pets find refuge after being displaced in the LA wildfires
Food and water has been left out for pets roaming Los Angeles County without their owners or homes after wildfires blazed through the area in January 2025. Via ABC News
(Los Angeles) — Whimpers and whines can be heard long before the sad feline and canine faces are visible within one Los Angeles-area animal shelter that has been overflowing since the fires.
Nearly 1,000 displaced and stray animals have come through the Pasadena Humane Society, just half a mile from a stadium housing people displaced by the fire.
Hundreds of animals are unidentified and waiting to be found by their owners; others are being housed at the shelter while their families find a place to live.
Several of the four-legged guests are receiving urgent medical care for burn injuries.
Among those rescued is a mama dog that was nursing her tiny puppies against the back wall of her kennel when ABC News visited on Thursday.
A kitten named Angel had all four paws wrapped in casts, yet slept soundly in her kennel with a cone around her neck.
The unfortunate reality is that there are still many pets that have yet to be safely recovered and hundreds of pet owners have not located their beloved family members after losing their homes.
Lost-and-found pet posters stapled to telephone poles are no longer an option, especially in fire-ravaged neighborhoods in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, where over 10,000 structures have burned to the ground.
A handful of “lost and found” pet pages emerged on social media after the fires, aiming to reunite lost pets with their families.
Desperate owners have been posting photos of their pets, hoping someone has seen their beloved family member.
Pasadena Humane Society has taken to putting out food and water in their now-uninhabitable neighborhoods, hoping to lure pets back — or, at least, stay nourished until they are found and reunited with their owners.
Unclaimed animals — listed as strays — will be held at the Pasadena Humane Society for 30 days and then placed for adoption.
Animal volunteers are urging the parents of lost pets to check local shelters each day in the hope of being reunited with missing animals.
Meanwhile, other pet owners who evacuated and lost their homes are taking refuge at hotels across Los Angeles.
The famous Beverly Hilton, which is known for hosting both the Golden Globes and Daytime Emmy Awards, is currently housing hundreds of displaced residents and their four-legged friends.
A “glamorous zoo” is how Hilton spokesperson Cody LaGrow described the scene, with hotel staff doing everything possible to accommodate the animals from a hospitality perspective.
The hotel is providing “wee wee” pads, helping with pet food and buying pet beds for guests.
The “pooch invasion,” as LaGrow described it, is a story of hope — with the hotel becoming a site of coping, resilience and emotional support, for both people and their cherished pets.
ABC News’ Brandon Chase contributed to this report.
(LOS ANGELES) — The Los Angeles wildfires have destroyed thousands of structures since Jan. 7. In Altadena, north of Pasadena, the Eaton Fire has damaged or destroyed 7,000 structures.
One of the structures destroyed by the fire was the home Erion and Stephan Taylor lived in with their three children. They say they only had 20 minutes to evacuate on Jan. 7.
“My heart dropped, I saw the flames, and I said ‘Honey, come here for a second’ and he looked out the door and his whole demeanor changed,” Erion Taylor told ABC News.
The Taylors quickly packed their most precious items — wedding photos, loved ones’ ashes, stuffed animals and soccer cleats — into the car. They made their escape to Stephan’s mother’s home — Peggy Taylor lives a 7-minute drive down the hill.
However, the flames quickly threatened her home as well and the family fled. Since then, they have been living in a hotel room.
“The kids need a yard. They need a familiar space,” Erion said. “They need a kitchen table or a room to go to and shut the door if they want to be by themselves for a little bit.”
Erion said they’re hurt over what they lost, but her focus remains on what they still have — each other.
“I don’t care about things at all. Everything can be replaced,” she said. “There’s things I wish I had. I genuinely have everything I need right here. I have everything I need right here.”
When the Taylors were able to return to their Altadena neighborhood, they found their house in ruins. It’s a situation many across the area are facing, leaving families with an uncertain future.
Black families began moving to the area in the ’30s, during the Great Migration, and Altadena became a multicultural haven in the ’60s. This was a result of Black people being able to get mortgages and Altadena being free of “redlining” — a practice that saw federally insured mortgages, loans and private residential insurance being withheld from non-white homeowners.
Peggy Taylor, known as Ms. Peggy, moved to the area when she was 17. The home she bought in the ’60s has housed both her boys and their families at some point or another, making it a haven for their family. Miraculously, that house was spared by the fire.
“To see it standing and there’s no additional wind damage, doesn’t look like it’s been burglarized, makes me feel a lot better,” Ms. Peggy told ABC News.
Officials have been opening up areas of the evacuation zone, allowing people whose homes are still standing to return. One of those areas includes Ms. Peggy’s home, so the family may be able to relocate there soon.
People are already banding together to help rebuild what’s been lost in Altadena — an effort that’s giving the Taylors hope.
“We create, not destroy, and we are going to create our neighborhoods,” Erion said. “And we’re standing in front of a sign that says ‘Altadena is not for sale,’ because every single person here wants to make sure that the people are taken care of.”
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge in Boston said he denied the request to block the buyout offer because the federal unions who brought the case lacked standing to sue and because the District Court lacks jurisdiction to review the case.
Three federal employee unions — with the support of 20 Democratic attorneys general — have argued in a lawsuit that the Office of Personnel Management’s deferred resignation offer is an “unlawful ultimatum” to force the resignation of government workers under the “threat of mass termination.”
According to U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr., the federal unions who challenged the policy are not directly impacted by the buyout offer; rather they are subject to collateral impacts such as a reduction in union membership and needing to answer their members’ questions about the policy.
“The unions do not have the required direct stake in the Fork Directive but are challenging a policy that affects others, specifically executive branch employees. This is not sufficient,” the judge wrote.
The judge also determined that the district court lacks jurisdiction to review the dispute because the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute sets out an administrative review process before courts can take over.
“According to this complex scheme, disputes must first be administratively exhausted before the employing agency and the relevant administrative review board and any further challenges are properly heard in a court of appeals,” the order said.
O’Toole Jr. did not include any interpretation about how the buyout deadline is impacted in his order.
“This Boston Buyout Ruling is the first of many legal wins for the President. The Court dissolved the injunction due to a lack of standing. This goes to show that lawfare will not ultimately prevail over the will of 77 million Americans who supported President Trump and his priorities,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Wednesday.
During an hour-long hearing Monday, a lawyer for the Department of Justice framed the deferred resignation offer as a “humane off-ramp” for federal employees before President Donald Trump enacts sweeping changes to “rebalance and reorganize the federal workforce.”
“President Trump campaigned on a promise to reform the federal workforce,” DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton said, outlining Trump’s plan to reduce the size of the federal government and his return-to-office executive order. “We understand these announcements may have come as a disappointment for some in the federal workforce.”
Hamilton argued that any further delay of the buyout would cause irreparable harm because the Trump administration plans to enact the next steps of reshaping the federal government as soon as the buyout window closes.
Elena Goldstein, a lawyer representing the unions that brought the challenge, hammered the Trump administration for attempting to enforce an “unprecedented program” with a “slapdash exploding deadline”
“For the last two weeks, confusion has rained for millions of career civil servants,” Goldstein said. “This is a program of unprecedented magnitude that raises questions about the rationality of OPM’s decision-making.”
The buyout offer, part of Trump’s effort to trim the size of government through billionaire Elon Musk’s newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, was sent out two weeks ago in an email with the subject line “Fork in the Road” — the same language Musk used when he slashed jobs at Twitter after taking over that company in 2022.
The offer from the Office of Personnel Management offered full pay and benefits until September for any federal employee who accepted a deferred resignation by Feb. 6, with no obligation to work after they accepted the agreement.
While Goldstein acknowledged that Trump has the right to downsize the federal government, she emphasized that OPM has not gone through any of the steps necessary to carry out such a sweeping move — including analyzing the cost and benefits of their approach, evaluating its impact on the government’s function, and accessing potential conflicts of interest for Musk. She added that the exact terms of the buyout are “shifting” for thousands of employees who have gotten inconsistent guidance from their agency.
“OPM appears to be making this up as they are going along,” she said. “When the government wants to decide, there are ways to do this correctly … none of that happened here in the two weeks since they enacted this program.”
Arguing for the government, Hamilton criticized the plaintiffs’ argument as “legally incoherent and at odds with their theory of the case,” because a further delay of the buyout would “insert more uncertainty” into the lives of federal employees.
While the plaintiffs raised concerns that the buyout program violates federal law by using money that Congress never appropriated, Hamilton attempted to push back on the claim that the buyout changes the government’s financial obligations.
“Nothing about the voluntary resignation changes anything about the federal government’s financial obligations. It just changes what employees are expected to do and not do during their period of employment,” Hamilton said.
Goldstein argued that a preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent what she said was an unlawful offer to reshape the federal government while the Trump administration continues to “put additional pressure on employees.”
“This is an unprecedented action taken on an unprecedented timeline,” she said.
Just hours ahead of Thursday’s original deadline for employees to accept the offer, Judge O’Toole — who was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton — temporarily blocked the offer until Monday so he could consider issuing a temporary restraining offer pausing the order.
“I enjoined the defendants from taking any action to implement the so-called ‘Fork Directive’ pending the completion of briefing and oral argument on the issues,” Judge O’Toole said in his ruling. “I believe that’s as far as I want to go today.”
The Trump administration, in response, “extended” the deadline for the offer, which more than 65,000 federal employees have already taken.
The unions who brought the lawsuit argued that Trump exceeded his authority as president with the offer, which they described as a “slapdash resignation program.”
According to the plaintiffs, Trump’s offer violates federal law, lacks congressionally appropriated funding, and does not offer employees reassurance that the president would follow through with the offer. Their claim in part relies on a federal law from the 1940s called the Administrative Procedure Act that governs how federal agencies create and enforce rules.
“In the tech universe, ‘move fast and break things’ is a fine motto in part because they’re not playing with the public’s money, and it’s expected that most initiatives are going to fail,” Loyola Marymount law professor Justin Leavitt told ABC News. “Congress knows that, so in 1946 they basically said, ‘When agencies do stuff … they have to be careful about it. They’ve got to consider all aspects of the problem.”
The plaintiffs also argued that the buyout is unlawful because it relies on funding that Congress has yet to appropriate, violating the Antideficiency Act.
“Defendants’ ultimatum divides federal workers into two groups: (1) those who submit their resignations to OPM for a promised period of pay without the requirement to work, and (2) those who have not and are therefore subject to threat of mass termination,” the lawsuit said.
Lawyers for the federal government have pushed back on those claims, arguing that Trump has the legal authority to provide the buyout for employees within the federal branch, and that any further delay would do more harm than good.
“Extending the deadline for the acceptance of deferred resignation on its very last day will markedly disrupt the expectations of the federal workforce, inject tremendous uncertainty into a program that scores of federal employees have already availed themselves of, and hinder the Administration’s efforts to reform the federal workforce,” DOJ attorney Joshua E. Gardner wrote in a filing last week.
(LITTLE ROCK, Ark.) — Shots rang out at the Park Plaza Mall in Little Rock, Arkansas, on Black Friday, leaving three people injured, police said.
The shooting occurred at 1:44 p.m., according to the Little Rock Police Department. The three people who were hurt have injuries that are not believed to be life-threatening, according to police.
Little Rock Mayor Frank Scott Jr. released a statement after the shooting, saying there are two suspects.
“Two individuals today jeopardized the lives and safety of residents and visitors,” Scott Jr. said Friday.
“We are praying for the victims of this incident, and are hopeful they make a full recovery,” he added.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.