Dogs will remain not for sale in East Providence, following a ruling of the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a decision penned Tuesday, Dec. 8, Justices Jeffrey R. Howard, O. Rogeriee Thompson and Bruce M. Selya ruled against Perfect Puppy Inc. in its appeal of a prior ruling in U.S. District Court backing the city's ordinance banning the sale of cats and dogs.

To conclude their 16-page decision the judges decreed, "With that and at long last, we affirm the judge's handling of the facial-takings issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction as to that part of the judge's order remanding the as-applied claim to state court."

Perfect Puppy was appealing the decision of U.S. District Court Chief Judge William E. Smith in April of this year. Judge Smith rebuked the store's challenge while upholding the city's ordinance banning dog and cat sales.

“I am elated that the City of East Providence has won the latest round in the Perfect Puppy v City of East Providence matter,” City Council President and Mayor Tommy Rose said in a press release.

"The First Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Chief Judge Smith’s opinion in a clear and convincing decision. The City is more than satisfied that its ordinance was correctly enacted and our decision has been supported by the U.S. District Court and now the U.S. Court of Appeals," Mr. Rose added.

On June 3, 2014, the City Council passed an ordinance curtailing the sale of cats and dogs while implementing a fine schedule of up to $2,000 for each day the business was in violation.

Only a month before, Perfect Puppy, which operates two other locations in the state, had signed a lease agreement to open a new store at 1235 Wampanoag Trail.

Perfect Puppy quickly took the matter to the courts. The business argued that the ordinance was illegal and violated its constitutional rights while seeking damages of more than $10,000 for loss of income and costs.

The Circuit Court judges wrote, "An unhappy Perfect Puppy appeals. But we see no error with the judge's facial-takings ruling and have no jurisdiction over the judge's remand order — a dual appraisal that leads us to affirm in part and dismiss in part."

Attorney Marc DeSisto and Kathleen Daniels, of DeSisto Law, and City Solicitor Tim Chapman represented the city in the case.