ALDF and United Poultry Concerns have
both filed lawsuits
claiming because they had to divert time and
money to fighting lawsuits — (against foie gras in CA and against Chabad of Irvine for killing chickens (ritual killing)…–that they suffered loss of resources (from the mission of a nonprofit)… because they had to divert money from whatever else their non profit groups do?
Amazingly, ALDF actually won the first or second round against the restaurant which allegedly served someone foie gras but that person was not charged for it.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT–THE CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT THEN PUBLISHED THIS DECISION:
http://blog.pacificlegal.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ALDF-v-LT-Napa-LETTER-BRIEF.pdf (this is letter to Supreme Court Judge arguing AGAINST the AR group, by The Pacific Legal Foundation taking the restaurant’s side……….saying ALDF has no standing….)
Nonprofit Says It Can Assert UCL Claims Related To Animal Abuse
(Response available. Document #58-161018-005B.)
UPC filed a response, noting that two courts recently held that animal protection organizations have standing to sue under the UCL in cases where a defendant’s alleged unlawful actions divert resources from the mission of a nonprofit.
The cases cited by UPC are Animal Legal Defense Fundv. LT Napa Partners, LLC ( 234 Cal.App4th 1270, 1282) and Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Great Bull Run, LLC (No. 14-cv-01171-MEJ, N.D. Calif.).
UPC argues that “in the present case, Plaintiff’s efforts to seek bans on other cruel practices have been frustrated by combating Defendants’ unlawful animal sacrifice activities. This diversion of resources results directly from Defendants’ unlawful behavior and has cost Plaintiff money and volunteer resources, making it is exactly the sort of harm that gives Plaintiff standing to bring this action under Napa Partners and Great Bull Run.”
California Court Remands To Allow For Amendments On Animal Research Claims
(July 11, 2016, 2:11 PM EDT) — SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California appeals court on July 5 reversed and remanded a case filed by an animal welfare organization which asserted that a research facility violated California’s unfair competition law in relation to its research on goats and rabbits to allow for an amendment to include allegations regarding other species (Stop Animal Exploitation Now v. Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc., No. H039770, Calif. App., 6th Dist.; 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5017).
As can easily be seen, the ARs are now focused on taking down ANY business that does ANYTHING they do not like, simply by claiming that it’s unfair competition in CA because they don’t like it, they have to spend money against it, and that blah blah blah.
UCL law in CA is pretty specific, but when AR groups cherry pick ways to file lawsuits against businesses, they will make sure to choose carefully—- amazingly, they didn’t file hundreds of such claims on Sea World or the rodeos, or every zoo, or every pet store? Instead they protested outside Sea World and the circus, and now Sea World doesn’t have Shamu type shows, and Ringling Brothers has announced they are going out of business.
WHAT BETTER PROOF IS THERE— THAT AR GROUPS ARE SIMPLY TAKING DOWN ANY TYPE OF BUSINESS WHICH USES ANIMALS? FOR FOOD? FOR ENTERTAINMENT? FOR SCIENCE?