Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Welfare

Animal Cruelty Criminal Statute Does Not
Create Private Right of Action

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Mendes, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 553 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), the Fifth District Court of Appeal of California held that California Penal Code § 597t did not create a private right of action by which private entities could bring suit, and also held that a claim brought by individual consumers of dairy products had shown only "moral injury" and no actual economic injury, and therefore dismissed both proffered claims for failure to state a cause of action.

Background

The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) brought a claim against Victor and Debbie Mendes, dairy cattle farmers, alleging that the calves raised by the Mendes were being confined without an "adequate exercise area" in violation of Penal Code § 597t, and seeking an injunction to prevent further violation of that section. Id. at 554-55. Two individual dairy product consumers also brought an action against the dairy cattle farmers, alleging a violation of the unfair business practices law (Business and Professions Code § 17204) and sought the same injunction. Id. at 555. The trial court dismissed both claims for failure to state a cause of action, and the plaintiffs appealed. Id. at 556.

Arguments

ALDF argued that Penal Code § 597t impliedly gave a private right of action to entities with a longstanding commitment to carrying out the laws protecting animals and a history of "direct work in the area of animal cruelty law enforcement and protection." Id.

The consumers argued that as a direct result of purchasing unlawfully produced dairy products, they had suffered and would continue to suffer substantial pecuniary losses and irreparable injury. Id. at 559.

Analysis and Holdings

The court determined that the legislature had not intended Penal Code § 597t to create a private right of action, because California statutes had already "deputized" humane societies to aid in the enforcement of anticruelty laws, and therefore affirmed the lower court's demurrer. Id. at 557-58. Regarding the consumers' claim, the court found that because the causal connection between wrongful conduct and injury was not apparent from the pleadings, it should have been alleged with specificity. Id. at 559-60. The court found that the only injury the consumers suffered was a "moral injury" because the dairy products they purchased were not of inferior quality, and a moral injury was not enough to sustain a cause of action. Id. at 560. The court concluded that the consumers had not alleged nor shown that they could allege actual economic injury; therefore, they lacked standing to sue under Business and Professions Code § 17204. Id. As a result, the court affirmed the trial court's dismissal. Id. at 561.

The case was decided on February 15, 2008; this summary was posted February 5, 2009.