Although HSUS was not involved directly as a litigant in this case, HSUS and ASPCA were sued for Racketeering in the elephant case back East (Ringling) and after the 14yr+ of that case, HSUS and ASPCA paid out millions rather than to lose at trial on proven Racketeering (which they would have LOST for sure.)
The Losing AR Groups (writing Amicus Curiae) for the losing Plaintiffs in the CA case:
Animal Legal Defense Fund as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant
Last Chance for Animals as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant
….[ P]laintiff alleged that the Zoo’s conduct violated animal cruelty provisions in the Penal Code, and constituted illegal expenditures of, waste of, or injury to public funds and property.
On appeal, both parties challenged the trial court’s issuance of limited injunctions prohibiting the use of particular forms of inappropriate discipline, requiring the elephants have specific amounts of exercise time, and requiring the rototilling of the soil in the exhibit.
The court agreed with the trial court that the court’s decision in the first appeal was law of the case of plaintiff’s right to bring a taxpayer action based on violations of certain Penal Code provisions concerning animal abuse. In the alternative, the court concluded that Civil Code section 3369, which prohibits the issuance of an injunction to enforce a penal law, does not apply to taxpayer suits. The court further concluded that the trial court’s injunctions concerning soil maintenance and exercise time were proper, but rejected plaintiff’s claims that the trial court erred by otherwise declining to close the elephant exhibit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.