Agriculture: False Claims

California

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. California Milk Producers Advisory Bd.

22 Cal.Rptr.3d 900

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California, 2005

FACTS: Appellants People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. and John Robbins (collectively considered PETA) sued the California Milk Advisory Board (CMAB), claiming that its “Happy Cows” advertising campaign violated California’s Unfair Business Practices Act (UCL) because the advertisements were false and deceptive.  The advertisements portray spacious, grassy pastures with a few cows grazing and “enjoying” the ease of life as a California dairy cow.  In reality, however, the vast majority of California’s dairy cows spend their lives in grassless dirt lots. The cows are repeatedly impregnated and milked throughout their pregnancies.  The cows suffer from painful maladies associated with their intensive rearing.  And finally, when the cows can no longer meet the high production demands, they are slaughtered.  PETA alleges that because the conditions in which California dairy cows are kept are so materially different from those presented in the advertisements, the ads are unlawfully deceptive and therefore subject to injunctive relief.  CMAB filed demurrers to PETA’s amended complaint, which the trial court sustained without leave to amend.  The trial court held that public entities, including the CMAB, are not “persons” who are subject to suit under the UCL.  PETA appeals from the judgment of dismissal.

    
ISSUE: Whether the CMAB is a “person” that can be sued under the UCL.

HOLDING: No, public entities like the CMAB are not “persons” who are subject to suit under the UCL.  Since the CMAB is not a statutory “person” the lawsuit cannot proceed on the merits. 

Federal

Schumacher v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.

434 F.Supp.2d 748

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Northern Division, 2006

FACTS: Cattle producers filed a class action lawsuit under the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA) and state law, alleging that beef packers knowingly used inaccurate prices published by the United States Department of Agriculture to negotiate the purchase of slaughter cattle at substantially lower prices than were economically justified.  The cattle producers sought damages for alleged violations of the PSA and for unjust enrichment in violation of state law.  Tyson Fresh Meats has filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. 

ISSUES: 1) Whether the cattle producers must show that Tyson Fresh Meats’ conduct in violation of the PSA adversely affected competition; 2) whether there is no unjust enrichment claim because none of the slaughter cattle sold during the class period were slaughtered in South Dakota; 3) whether there is no unjust enrichment claim where there has been an express contract; 4) whether Tyson Fresh Meats is entitled to summary judgment.

HOLDING: 1) No, the cattle producers do not have to show that Tyson Fresh Meats’ alleged conduct in violation of the PSA adversely affected competition.  2) No, there can be an unjust enrichment claim.  The place of slaughter does not govern the choice of law.  3) No, there can be an unjust enrichment claim because without a meeting of the minds there was no express contract.  4) No, Tyson Fresh Meats is not entitled to summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact still exist. Summary judgment was denied.