Golden Gals Lawsuit: Claims, Health Guarantee, and Case Status

The Golden Gals lawsuit is a civil fraud case filed in Connecticut Superior Court in December 2023, in which seven families accuse the Bethany, Connecticut golden retriever breeder of misrepresenting how it raises its puppies and knowingly selling dogs with a serious genetic heart defect. The case, Carey, Heather et al. v. The Golden Gal’s LLC et al. (No. FBT-CV24-6129993-S), remains active as of the most recent filings, with a Second Amended Complaint filed in April 2025.¹

What the Families Allege

The Golden Gals markets itself on its website as a “kennel free facility” on a 10-acre farm where puppies are raised “from birth with love and undivided attention.”² The plaintiffs allege the reality is different. According to the complaint, the defendants did not actually breed or raise dogs at their registered Bethany address and instead brokered puppies obtained from sources in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, fabricating the names of parent dogs on sale paperwork. Visitors to the property reportedly saw little evidence that dogs were being raised on-site.³

The more serious allegations concern the puppies’ health. The complaint centers on Subaortic Stenosis, a genetic heart defect that narrows the area below the aortic valve and, in severe cases, is life-threatening and incurable. A veterinary cardiologist at Cornell, Dr. Jonathan Goodwin, is quoted in the complaint telling one family he had treated 20 to 30 dogs from The Golden Gals, all diagnosed with the condition.³

Beyond heart disease, the complaint alleges puppies were delivered with giardia, hookworms, coccidia, skin rashes, hip dysplasia, behavioral problems, and extreme anxiety.³

The Shared Stud Dog

Three of the plaintiffs’ puppies trace back to the same sire, a dog named Ruger owned by a related business, Aly’s Golden Retrievers LLC. Ruger was bred repeatedly with females owned by The Golden Gals, including dogs named Lana, Rae, and Koda. Cream-colored golden retriever puppies from these pairings sold for roughly $4,200 each.³

The individual cases described in the complaint include:

A family that purchased a puppy in 2020 from the Lana and Ruger line; the dog was diagnosed with mild Subaortic Stenosis in 2022, progressing to borderline severe by age two and requiring twice-daily medication for life.
Named plaintiff Diane Pontious, who purchased a puppy named Finn in 2023 from the Rae and Ruger line; Finn was diagnosed with a Stage 3 heart murmur linked to Subaortic Stenosis, and Pontious reported $4,975.83 in veterinary bills as of December 2023.
Named plaintiff Heather Carey, whose 2023 puppy from the Koda and Ruger line was diagnosed with a severe case of the same condition.

According to veterinary records cited in the complaint, Ruger himself was diagnosed with a Stage 1 heart murmur in May 2019. The plaintiffs allege the defendants continued breeding him after that diagnosis. When confronted by a customer in December 2023, Steven Kubik texted, “I have no other history of any other murmurs in my lines that I’m aware of,” a claim the plaintiffs say is demonstrably false.³

Legal Claims and Relief Sought

The complaint asserts eight causes of action, including fraudulent inducement, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair trade practices under Connecticut General Statutes § 42-110g, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.³

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, reimbursement for veterinary expenses, attorney fees, and a court injunction to stop the defendants’ breeding practices. Under Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, a person who suffers a financial loss from prohibited conduct can sue for actual damages, and the court has discretion to add punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees, along with injunctive relief that could force the business to change or cease operations.⁴

The case is not a class action. It is a multi-plaintiff civil suit, with each family asserting individual claims. The families are represented by Carey & Associates, P.C. of Southport, Connecticut.¹

Earlier Complaints and Regulatory History

The lawsuit follows a trail of prior consumer and regulatory friction. In 2020, a State Animal Control Officer issued an infraction to the Kubiks at their former Southbury residence for operating a “pet shop” under Connecticut General Statutes § 22-344, a statute that regulates the commercial sale of animals.⁵ In March 2021, a buyer named Jeremy Turkel filed a small claims action alleging a puppy he purchased for $2,500 had parvovirus.³

A December 2023 investigation report from the Connecticut Department of Agriculture’s Animal Control Division (File No. 2022-71) found that, by the defendants’ own admission, they managed 15 separate litters between November 2021 and March 2022. At an average of 10 puppies per litter and $4,000 per dog, the report estimated those sales at roughly $600,000.³

Customers also filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau. A May 2023 review described a puppy that developed aortic stenosis, a wrist deformity, and parasites, with the reviewer stating the business refused reimbursement. Diane Pontious filed her own BBB complaint in December 2023 about her puppy’s heart murmur.³ The BBB profile for The Golden Gals LLC carries a C+ rating, attributed in part to a failure to respond to a complaint filed against the business.⁶

What The Golden Gals’ Health Guarantee Actually Covers

The written contract Golden Gals provides to buyers includes a two-year health guarantee for genetic defects such as hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, Subaortic Stenosis, and eye certification failures. If one of those conditions is diagnosed within two years, the contract entitles the buyer to a replacement puppy “of equal quality, sex, and bloodline” within 12 months. It does not provide a refund, and shipping costs for the replacement fall on the buyer.⁷

The guarantee excludes parasites, viral illnesses like parvovirus, and physical injuries. Buyers must also have the puppy examined by a veterinarian within 72 hours of pickup and spay or neuter the dog by one year of age. Any failure to comply voids the guarantee entirely.⁷ The plaintiffs’ theory is that a replacement puppy from the same breeding lines is not a meaningful remedy when the breeder allegedly knows those lines produce heart-defective animals.

Where the Case Stands

The original complaint, filed December 26, 2023, in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, named two plaintiffs and two defendants: The Golden Gal’s LLC, owned by Ashley and Steven Kubik, and Aly’s Golden Retrievers LLC, owned by Alexandria Cottrell.⁵ A First Amended Complaint filed March 5, 2024, expanded the plaintiff group to seven families: Heather Carey, Diane Pontious, William Chellis, Thomas LaTorre, Eric Ackerman, Jessica Gersh Wylie, and Brenda DuFault.³

Court records show the claims against Aly’s Golden Retrievers were withdrawn in July 2025, and plaintiff Jessica Gersh Wylie was withdrawn from the case in September 2025.⁸ No trial date, settlement, or ruling on the merits has been reported. The defendants were listed as non-appearing in the initial filing, and no public response from Ashley or Steven Kubik addressing the allegations appears in the available record.

1
Carey & Associates, P.C. Lawsuit Filed Against The Golden Gals and Alys Golden Retrievers for Fraud
2
The Golden Gals. About Us
3
Carey & Associates, P.C. First Amended Complaint, Carey v. The Golden Gal’s LLC
4
Justia. Connecticut General Statutes § 42-110g
5
Carey & Associates, P.C. Complaint, Carey v. The Golden Gal’s LLC
6
BBB. The Golden Gals LLC BBB Business Profile
7
The Golden Gals. Golden Gals Purchase Agreement
8
Docket Alarm. Carey, Heather Et Al v. The Golden Gal’s LLC Et Al