The recent, highly publicized recall of more than 143 million pounds of beef may make Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Mendes, case no. F052009 (5th Dist. Feb. 15, 2008) more relevant to some people than it otherwise would have been.
It’s a suit brought by the Fund against a calf rancher, alleging violation of Penal Code section 597t for confining animals without an “adequate exercise area.” Plaintiffs also include consumers who allege violation of the unfair competition statutes. The consumers “reasonably presumed” that dairy products they purchased were produced from animals kept in compliance with the law and alleged that they lost money by purchasing dairy products that were illegally produced.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal affirms.
On the Fund’s cause of action for violation of the penal code, the court determines that the legislature did not intend a private right of action by private parties. The comprehensive legislative scheme for the incorporation of humane societies for the prevention of cruelty for animals effectively “deputizes” those societies “to aid local authorities in the enforcement of anticruelty laws,” indicating that there was no legislative intent to create a private right of action by enacting Penal Code section 597t.
The consumers’ claim fails because they fail to allege injury. They failed to allege any misrepresentations, that the dairy products they purchased originated with the defendant, or that the products were inferior in any way. Their complaint merely alleged that they were deprived of the “benefit of the bargain” — not enough for standing. They argued on appeal that the products were morally tainted by the treatment of the calves that later joined dairy herds. That might have been enough prior to 2004, the court notes, but the amended UCL requires that a private plaintiff have suffered “injury in fact and [have] lost money or property.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.) Economic harm is required; moral taint doesn’t suffice.