FARM ANIMALS

Levine, et al. v. Johanns

This federal lawsuit challenges a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) notice stating that the federal humane slaughter laws do not apply to poultry.  The 1958 Humane Methods of Slaughter Act states that "'cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock' must be slaughtered by humane methods."  USDA’s attorneys argue the “other livestock” was not meant to include poultry and was intended to be limited to quadrupeds. 

Individual poultry consumers, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), East Bay Animal Advocates (EBAA), workers’ rights organizations, and poultry processing plant workers filed suit claiming that the USDA notice was arbitrary and capricious because, by stating that there was no federal statute governing the humane slaughter of poultry, the Notice disregarded the application of the 1958 HMSA humane slaughter requirements to "other livestock.” 

The USDA moved to dismiss the action based on, inter alia, plaintiffs’ lack of standing.  The consumers’ standing is based on their increased risk of consuming bacterially infected poultry due to inhumane slaughter of chickens.  The federal court ruled that the risk of contracting a food-borne illness was an injury-in-fact that provided the poultry consumers standing. The poultry workers standing is based on the more dangerous working conditions that are a result of inhumane slaughter. The court held that the physical harm the birds inflicted on the workers while the birds were trying to avoid being slaughtered, and the emotional distress the workers suffered by seeing conscious birds suffer, was enough to establish injury-in-fact.  

With regard to HSUS and EBAA, the court dismissed them as plaintiffs.  The court held that the asserted interest in the lawsuit (risk to consumer health) was not germane to the purpose of the organizations.

Evans & Page is co-counsel with the HSUS legal team.

FREE SPEECH

Alfredo Kuba and San Diego Animal Advocates v. SeaWorld, Inc., et al.

Plaintiffs attempted to peacefully demonstrate at Sea World Adventure Park in San Diego and were kicked off the property and threatened with arrest.  Sea World rents the land for its operations from the City of San Diego and the rent is calculated as a percentage of Sea World’s revenue.  Sea World has a policy of forbidding all free speech activities.  Plaintiffs have sued under the California and United States Constitution’s free speech laws. 

ANIMAL RESEARCH

Salk, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California

Evans & Page is co-counseling with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in a suit brought by California taxpayers and physicians against The Regents of the University of California (The Regents) based on research conducted at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). 

For several years government inspectors have documented serious violations of the Animal Welfare Act at UCSF, and in 2005, the university was fined $92,500, reportedly the fourth-largest settlement amount ever paid for violations of this nature. Under California law, taxpayers are entitled to sue if state resources are funding illegal activities and being used to pay the resulting fines.  The lawsuit seeks equitable relief from the court to ensure that UCSF follows the Animal Welfare Act. 

“UCSF has broken the law in its mistreatment of dogs, monkeys, and other animals used in experiments,” says Dan Kinburn, general counsel for PCRM. “We are asking the court to halt these unlawful experiments and to appoint an independent monitor to ensure that any future research is in compliance with the Animal Welfare Act.”