Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Plaintiff,
vs.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff hereby respectfully submits its response to the Courts Order to Show
Cause Regarding Dismissal for Lack of Standing issued on October 6, 2016
28
1
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
In two recent cases that are directly on point, courts held that animal protection
organizations have standing to sue under Californias Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
where combatting a defendants unlawful acts diverts resources from the plaintiff
LLC (2015) 234 Cal.App4th 1270, 1282 (Napa Partners), the Court of Appeal found
the plaintiff animal protection organization had standing to sue a restaurant for selling
foie gras in violation of a state animal cruelty law, because this unlawful activity tended
to frustrate plaintiffs advocacy for an effective ban on the sale of foie gras in California,
and tended to impede plaintiffs ability to shift its focus on advocacy efforts in, for
10
11
12
2014 WL 2568685 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2014) (Great Bull Run), the Court held the
13
plaintiff animal protection organizations had standing to sue an illegal bull run.
14
Organizational plaintiffs have standing under the UCL where they divert resources as a
15
16
In the present case, Plaintiffs efforts to seek bans on other cruel practices have
17
18
diversion of resources results directly from Defendants unlawful behavior and has cost
19
Plaintiff money and volunteer resources, making it is exactly the sort of harm that gives
20
Plaintiff standing to bring this action under Napa Partners and Great Bull Run.
21
The declaration indicates plaintiff spent months on the effort to persuade Napa
22
23
expenditures, as well as the resources spent in attempting to persuade the authorities, had
24
a purpose independent of the current litigation and might have rendered such litigation
25
26
In the present case, Ronnie Kudlow Steinau (STEINAU) has been an employee
27
of Plaintiff for over 10 years, since September 1, 2006. (Verified Complaint, 24.)
28
2
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
time working for Plaintiff was diverted to investigating and exposing these acts, and
The actions paid for by UPC included contacting various authorities, including
Rhett Dunn and Doug Hepper at the California Department of Food and Agriculture
(Steinau Decl.) 4.) These officials informed STEINAU that what Defendants were
unregulated, and that it was unlawful for these birds to be used for food. (Ibid.) Steinau
spent a total of about 2.5 hours corresponding with these two officials by phone and
10
11
Steinau also traveled 59 miles each way to Chabad of Irvine on October 1, 2014 to
12
13
14
CDFA agent Rhett Dunn, who Steinau spent UPC staff time communicating with
15
on the phone and by email, showed up as well on October 1, 2014 at the Chabad of
16
Irvine. (Id., 7.) Mr. Dunn had conversations with Defendants and/or their agents, who
17
were openly hostile, and Mr. Dunn appeared frightened and intimidated by them. (Ibid.)
18
After the October 1, 2014 animal sacrifice event at which Mr. Dunn confronted
19
Defendants and/or their agents at UPCs request, Defendants stopped distributing the
20
chicken carcasses for human consumption and instead began having them rendered into
21
fertilizer. (Id., 8.) Steinau spent a total of 2.5 hours traveling to and from the Chabad of
22
Irvine on October 1, 2014 and 4.5 hours on site to document, expose and influence
23
changes to Defendants illegal activities, which included forcing them to stop distributing
24
25
UPCs actions through Steinau were successful in ending the illegal use of the
26
animals for food, and Defendants thereby lost the exemption of Penal Code section 599c,
27
which prevents the animal cruelty laws from interfering with the killing of animals used
28
for food. (Id., 9.) This put Defendants in direct violation of Penal Code section 597(a),
3
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
which prohibits the malicious and intentional killing of an animal, and this is exactly
what Defendants plan to do this weekend if not enjoined by this Court. (Steinau Decl.,
10.)
Steinau also met with the division head of City of Irvine Animal Services on
October 2, 2014 to tell him what she had witnessed at Chabad of Irvine and to attempt to
convince him to take action. (Steinau Decl. 9.) However, the official told Steinau that
because religion was involved, there was nothing he could do. (Ibid.)
8
9
10
activities, were not part of Steinaus normal duties for UPC. These extraordinary tasks
11
diverted from her main responsibilities with UPC, which would have ordinarily
12
encompassed only administrative tasks and public outreach and education duties. This
13
diversion of Steinaus time caused UPC to lose money that it paid her and to lose the time
14
that she could have otherwise spent advancing UPCs core mission. (Steinau Decl., 11.)
15
All of the activities described in Steinaus declaration were undertaken almost two years
16
before this lawsuit was filed and were not undertaken in contemplation of this or any
17
18
Napa Partners and Great Bull Run are directly on point. UPC has standing under
19
the Unfair Competition Law based on its diversion of organizational resources spent
20
21
action.
22
23
24
25
26
27
By:
28
4
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE