Case 8:16-cv-01810-AB-GJS Document 17 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:119

1
2
3
4

David R. Simon (SBN 145197)
SIMON LAW GROUP
17595 Harvard Avenue, Suite C515
Irvine, CA 92614
Ph. (714) 975-1728

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Bryan W. Pease (SBN 239139)
LAW OFFICE OF BRYAN W. PEASE
3170 Fourth Ave., Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92103
Ph. (619) 723-0369
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED POULTRY CONCERNS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12
13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16

UNITED POULTRY CONCERNS, a
Maryland nonprofit corporation,

17
18

Plaintiff,
vs.

19
20
21
22
23
24

CHABAD OF IRVINE, a California
corporation; ALTER TENENBAUM, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants.
__________________________________________

) CASE NO. 8:16-cv-01810
)
) PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

25
26
27

Plaintiff hereby respectfully submits its response to the Court’s Order to Show
Cause Regarding Dismissal for Lack of Standing issued on October 6, 2016

28

1
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Case 8:16-cv-01810-AB-GJS Document 17 Filed 10/07/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:120

1

In two recent cases that are directly on point, courts held that animal protection

2

organizations have standing to sue under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”)

3

where combatting a defendant’s unlawful acts diverts resources from the plaintiff

4

nonprofit organization’s mission. In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. LT Napa Partners,

5

LLC (2015) 234 Cal.App4th 1270, 1282 (“Napa Partners”), the Court of Appeal found

6

the plaintiff animal protection organization had standing to sue a restaurant for selling

7

foie gras in violation of a state animal cruelty law, because this unlawful activity “tended

8

to frustrate plaintiff’s advocacy for an effective ban on the sale of foie gras in California,

9

and tended to impede plaintiff’s ability to shift its focus on advocacy efforts in, for

10
11

example, other states and at the federal level.” [Emphasis in original.]
In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Great Bull Run, LLC, No. 14-cv-01171-MEJ,

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

result of a defendant’s alleged unlawful business practices.” (Id. at p.6.)

16

In the present case, Plaintiff’s efforts to seek bans on other cruel practices have

17

been frustrated by combatting Defendants’ unlawful animal sacrifice activities. This

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

authorities to take action....Thus, plaintiff has presented evidence in its investigatory

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

unnecessary.” (Napa Partners, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p.1282.)

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

“When Plaintiff learned of Defendants’ illegal activities described herein, STEINAU’s

2
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Case 8:16-cv-01810-AB-GJS Document 17 Filed 10/07/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:121

1

time working for Plaintiff was diverted to investigating and exposing these acts, and

2

attempting to convince authorities to take action.” (Id., ¶25.)

3

The actions paid for by UPC included “contacting various authorities, including

4

Rhett Dunn and Doug Hepper at the California Department of Food and Agriculture

5

(‘CDFA’).” (Declaration of Ronnie Steinau in Response to Order to Show Cause

6

(“Steinau Decl.”) ¶4.) These officials informed STEINAU that “what Defendants were

7

doing amounted to operating an unlicensed, open-air slaughterhouse that was

8

unregulated, and that it was unlawful for these birds to be used for food.” (Ibid.) Steinau

9

“spent a total of about 2.5 hours corresponding with these two officials by phone and

10

email convincing them to take action against Defendants.” (Ibid.)

11

Steinau also traveled 59 miles each way to Chabad of Irvine on October 1, 2014 to

12

document, expose and successfully influence changes to Defendants’ unlawful activities,

13

costing $66 in reimbursable private vehicle mileage expenses. (Id., ¶5.)

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 UPC’s 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

the unsanitary carcasses for human consumption. (Id., ¶10.)

25

UPC’s 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

Case 8:16-cv-01810-AB-GJS Document 17 Filed 10/07/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:122

1

which prohibits the malicious and intentional killing of an animal, and this is exactly

2

what Defendants plan to do this weekend if not enjoined by this Court.” (Steinau Decl.,

3

¶10.)

4

Steinau also met with the division head of City of Irvine Animal Services on

5

October 2, 2014 to tell him what she had witnessed at Chabad of Irvine and to attempt to

6

convince him to take action. (Steinau Decl. ¶9.) However, the official told Steinau that

7

because religion was involved, there was nothing he could do. (Ibid.)

8
9

The several hours Steinau spent corresponding with officials attempting to
convince them to take action, and documenting and exposing Defendants’ unlawful

10

activities, were not part of Steinau’s 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 Steinau’s time caused UPC to lose money that it paid her and to lose the time

14

that she could have otherwise spent advancing UPC’s core mission. (Steinau Decl., ¶11.)

15

All of the activities described in Steinau’s declaration were undertaken almost two years

16

before this lawsuit was filed and were not undertaken in contemplation of this or any

17

other litigation. (Id., ¶12.)

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

addressing Defendants’ unlawful activity and attempting to convince authorities to take

21

action.

22
23
24
25
26
27

Dated: October 7, 2016

By:

SIMON LAW GROUP
LAW OFFICE OF BRYAN W. PEASE
/s/ Bryan W. Pease_____________
Bryan W. Pease
Attorneys for Plaintiff

28

4
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE