Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 50 Filed 06/25/21 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark McKane, P.C. (SBN 230552)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street, 29th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
`
`Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C. (admitted pro hac vice)
`Michael A. Glick (admitted pro hac vice)
`Terence J. McCarrick, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)
`Paul J. Weeks (admitted pro hac vice)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Sanderson Farms, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS and FRIENDS OF
`THE EARTH,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT
`
`Judge: Honorable Richard Seeborg
`Hearing Date: September 9, 2021
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Location: Courtroom 3, 17th Floor
`450 Golden Gate Avenue
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 50 Filed 06/25/21 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 9th day of September 2021, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter
`as this Motion may be heard by the Honorable Richard Seeborg in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, 450 Golden
`Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 (or via telephonic or videographic means as determined by the
`Court), Sanderson Farms, Inc. will, and hereby does, move the Court for an order dismissing the First
`Amended Complaint of In Defense of Animals and Friends of the Earth, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b). The Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the
`accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the entire file in this matter, and the arguments of
`counsel.
`
`DATED: June 25, 2021
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Michael A. Glick
`Michael A. Glick
`
`Mark McKane, P.C. (SBN 230552)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street, 29th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
`
`Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C. (admitted pro hac vice)
`Michael Glick (admitted pro hac vice)
`Terence J. McCarrick, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)
`Paul J. Weeks (admitted pro hac vice)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`Sanderson Farms, Inc.
`
`
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 50 Filed 06/25/21 Page 3 of 35
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................................3
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW .........................................................................................................................5
`
`ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................................................................6
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFFS LACK ARTICLE III STANDING TO PURSUE THEIR CLAIMS. .......................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`FoE’s Standing Allegations Are Barred by Issue Preclusion. .............................................7
`
`Neither Plaintiff Alleges a Cognizable Article III Injury. .................................................11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Setbacks to Plaintiffs’ Abstract Advocacy Interests Cannot Give Rise to
`a Diversion-of-Resources Injury. .............................................................. 11
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Plausibly Allege They Diverted Resources to Address
`Sanderson’s Conduct. ............................................................................... 13
`
`II.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FAL AND UCL ALLEGATIONS FAIL AS A MATTER OF LAW. .................17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot Assert False Advertising Claims Because They Did Not
`Actually Rely on the Allegedly False Ads. ........................................................................17
`
`FoE Cannot Assert FAL and UCL Claims on Behalf of One of Its Members. .................19
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot State a UCL Claim Based on Sanderson’s Farming Practices
`Alone. .................................................................................................................................20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Sanderson’s Use of Antibiotics is Explicitly Authorized by Law. ........... 20
`
`Sanderson’s Antibiotics and Housing Practices Are Not “Unfair
`Business Practices.” .................................................................................. 21
`
`The UCL Does Not Apply Extraterritorially. ........................................... 22
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiffs’ State-Law Challenges to Sanderson’s USDA-Approved Labels and
`Conduct at Sanderson’s USDA-Supervised Processing Facilities Are Preempted. ..........23
`
`CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................25
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 50 Filed 06/25/21 Page 4 of 35
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Allbirds, Inc. v. Giesswein Walkwaren AG,
`2020 WL 6826487 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020) ...........................................................................18
`
`Am. Diabetes Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army,
`938 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................7, 11, 14, 15
`
`Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756 v. Superior Court,
`209 P.3d 937 (Cal. 2009) .........................................................................................................19
`
`Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Mendes,
`72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 553 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) ...............................................................................21
`
`Arduini v. Hart,
`774 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................10
`
`Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co.,
`2013 WL 5530017 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2013) ..........................................................................24
`
`Brooks v. Alameida,
`2006 WL 2468725 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2006), R. & R. adopted as modified, 446 F.
`Supp. 2d 1179 (S.D. Cal. 2006) .............................................................................................8, 9
`
`Brower v. Campbell Soup Co.,
`243 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (S.D. Cal. 2017) ....................................................................................24
`
`U.S. ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................6, 20
`
`Cappello v. Walmart Inc.,
`2019 WL 11687705, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2019) ...............................................................18
`
`Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co.,
`973 P.2d 527 (Cal. 1999) ...................................................................................................20, 22
`
`CFTC v. Co Petro Mktg. Grp., Inc.,
`680 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1982) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`598 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,
`568 U.S. 398 (2013) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 50 Filed 06/25/21 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt,
`2020 WL 4188091 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2020) ...............................................................7, 15, 16
`
`Ctr. for Sci. in Pub. Interest v. Bayer Corp.,
`2010 WL 1223232 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2010) .........................................................................20
`
`Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A.,
`691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................4, 21
`
`Diamond v. Charles,
`476 U.S. 54 (1986) .............................................................................................................12, 15
`
`Direct Action Everywhere SF Bay Area v. Diestel Turkey Ranch,
`Case No. RG17847475 (Cal. Super. Ct. Nov. 23, 2020) (attached as Ex. 6), appeal
`filed, No. A162017 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2021) ...................................................................19
`
`Doe v. Holy See,
`557 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Drake v. Obama,
`664 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Durell v. Sharp Healthcare,
`108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 682 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) .............................................................................18
`
`Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................20
`
`In re Facebook, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`405 F. Supp. 3d 809 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .....................................................................................14
`
`Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack,
`808 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................13
`
`Friends of the Earth v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.,
`2019 WL 3457787 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2019), aff’d, 992 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2021) ........ passim
`
`Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman,
`455 U.S. 363 (1982) ...........................................................................................................12, 13
`
`Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc.,
`891 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................22
`
`Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee,
`456 U.S. 694 (1982) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Johnson v. Chain,
`1992 WL 158886 (9th Cir. 1992) ..............................................................................................8
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 50 Filed 06/25/21 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`Junod v. NWP Servs. Corp.,
`2015 WL 12712310 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2015) ........................................................................23
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,
`246 P.3d 877 (Cal. 2011) ...................................................................................................18, 21
`
`L.A. Taxi Coop., Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`114 F. Supp. 3d 852, 866 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .............................................................................18
`
`La Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake Forest,
`624 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................7, 11, 16, 17
`
`La Fosse v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.,
`N.D. Cal. Case No. 19-cv-6570, ECF No. 34 (Jan. 21, 2020) .................................................24
`
`Leining v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.,
`275 Cal. Rptr. 3d 682 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) .............................................................................24
`
`Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) .............................................................................................................6, 12
`
`McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger,
`369 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................8
`
`Meaunrit v. The Pinnacle Foods Grp., LLC,
`2010 WL 1838715 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2010) .....................................................................24, 25
`
`Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen,
`519 F. App’x 483 (9th Cir. 2013) ..............................................................................................9
`
`Montana v. United States,
`440 U.S. 147 (1979) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`N.M. Off-Highway Vehicle All. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`702 F. App’x 708 (10th Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................................10
`
`Nat’l Council of La Raza v. Cegavske,
`800 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................12
`
`Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris,
`565 U.S. 452 (2012) ...........................................................................................................24, 25
`
`O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`58 F. Supp. 3d 989 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................18
`
`Organic Consumers Ass’n v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.,
`284 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...............................................................................3, 24
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 50 Filed 06/25/21 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington,
`51 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1995) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Paulo v. Holder,
`669 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`53 F. Supp. 3d 1190 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .....................................................................................18
`
`Perry v. Sheahan,
`222 F.3d 309 (7th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................10
`
`Physicians for Integrity in Medical Research, Inc. v. Hamburg,
`2014 WL 12591629 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2014) ..........................................................................8
`
`Pierce v. Ducey,
`965 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) .............................................................................12
`
`Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC,
`2020 WL 7075624 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2020) ...........................................................................17
`
`Rodriguez v. City of San Jose,
`930 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................12
`
`ROTFL Prods., LLC v. Gzebb,
`2013 WL 12181763 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013) ........................................................................22
`
`S. Bay Chevrolet v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.,
`85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 301 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) ...............................................................................21
`
`Sabra v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist.,
`479 F. Supp. 3d 808 (D. Ariz. 2020), appeal filed, No. 20-16774 (9th Cir. Sept. 15,
`2020) ..................................................................................................................................11, 13
`
`Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer,
`373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Serv. Women’s Action Network v. Mattis,
`320 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................................15
`
`Sierra Club v. Morton,
`405 U.S. 727 (1972) ...........................................................................................................11, 15
`
`Smith v. Pac. Props. & Dev. Corp.,
`358 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................7, 16
`
`In re Sonus Networks, Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig.,
`499 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................................10
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 50 Filed 06/25/21 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`
`In re Stac Elecs. Sec. Litig.,
`89 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Struggs v. Hedgpeth,
`2012 WL 4497790 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012) ..........................................................................4
`
`Sullivan v. Oracle Corp.,
`254 P.3d 237 (Cal. 2011) .........................................................................................................22
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`In re Tobacco II Cases,
`207 P.3d 20 (Cal. 2009) ...........................................................................................................18
`
`United States v. Van Cauwenberghe,
`934 F.2d 1048 (9th Cir. 1991) ...................................................................................................8
`
`Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting,
`732 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................12
`
`Vaughn v. Bay Envtl. Mgmt., Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Webb v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
`418 F. Supp. 3d 524 (S.D. Cal. 2019), aff’d, --- F.3d ----, 2021 WL 2275265 (9th Cir.
`June 4, 2021) ............................................................................................................................25
`
`Williams v. Apple, Inc.,
`449 F. Supp. 3d 892 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...............................................................................17, 18
`
`Zhang v. Superior Court,
`304 P.3d 163 (Cal. 2013) .........................................................................................................21
`
`Statutes
`
`21 U.S.C. § 467e ......................................................................................................................23, 25
`
`21 U.S.C. § 678 ........................................................................................................................23, 25
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 ....................................................................................................21
`
`Rules
`
`9 C.F.R. § 412.1 .............................................................................................................................23
`
`21 C.F.R. pt. 558 ............................................................................................................................20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 .........................................................................................................................6, 20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 .......................................................................................................................6, 10
`vi
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 50 Filed 06/25/21 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`18A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice &
`Procedure § 4436 (3d ed.) .........................................................................................................8
`
`13A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice &
`Procedure § 3531.2 ..................................................................................................................13
`
`18 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice &
`Procedure § 4419 .......................................................................................................................9
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`vii
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 50 Filed 06/25/21 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This case is a copycat suit filed by one of the same parties and the very same lawyers involved in
`Friends of the Earth v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-03592-RS (N.D. Cal. filed June 22, 2017).
`Nearly two years ago, this Court dismissed that case, holding that the plaintiff organizations involved,
`including Friends of the Earth (“FoE”), lacked Article III standing because they did not divert resources
`in response to the conduct challenged in their complaint. See Friends of the Earth v. Sanderson Farms,
`Inc., 2019 WL 3457787 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2019) (“FoE (N.D.Cal.)”), aff’d, 992 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2021)
`(“FoE (9th Cir.)”). As the Court explained—and the Ninth Circuit agreed in a published opinion earlier
`this year—the organizations’ activities “were continuations of non-Sanderson-specific initiatives
`[p]laintiffs were undertaking in furtherance of their missions to address antibiotic use generally,” which
`were not in any sense “required by Sanderson’s advertising.” Id. at *2; FoE (9th Cir.), 992 F.3d at 943
`(“Once Sanderson’s misleading advertisements were brought to the attention of the Advocacy Groups,
`they simply continued doing what they were already doing . . . .”).
`Not long after the ink had dried on this Court’s July 2019 dismissal, the organizations in the prior
`suit, along with a new one, In Defense of Animals (“IDA”), set about finding ways to diminish the Court’s
`ruling, engaging in superficial activities in an effort to gin up standing. Based on these purportedly “new”
`efforts, Plaintiffs filed this case on July 31, 2020—one year to the day after the Court dismissed the FoE
`suit. Plaintiffs return with the same theory of standing, in many instances supported by the same facts as
`the prior litigation. The challenged advertisements and cited poultry-raising practices are also virtually
`identical. But Plaintiffs’ standing allegations and substantive claims are as flawed today as they were in
`the last case, and nothing in their recent amendment rescues their lawsuit from the profound legal errors
`infecting it. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit therefore should be dismissed.
`Lack of Standing. As in the last case, Plaintiffs here lack Article III standing, and Sanderson
`should not have to endure the costs of yet another lawsuit only to later show that Plaintiffs’ “diversions”
`of resources were nothing of the sort. As an initial matter, FoE is precluded from re-asserting standing on
`the basis of arguments it asserted (or could have asserted) in the prior case. But even if it was entitled to
`a do-over, neither FoE nor the new Plaintiff in this case, IDA, allege a cognizable injury-in-fact traceable
`to the conduct they challenge. Neither Plaintiff alleges that Sanderson’s conduct required anything of
`1
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 50 Filed 06/25/21 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs. Rather, the entire premise of this lawsuit (like the last one) is that, after learning about
`Sanderson’s chicken-raising practices and advertisements, Plaintiffs—which are self-described advocacy
`organizations—chose to engage in advocacy efforts in response. But standing is not a spigot to be turned
`on and off at an organization’s election, and it does not honor Article III to allow organizational plaintiffs
`to skirt constitutional requirements where they opt to contest conduct that does not independently harm
`them. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claimed “diversions” were (at best) continuations of their standard advocacy
`initiatives—the very “business as usual” that this Court and the Ninth Circuit held to be insufficient—or
`(at worst) transparent litigation-related activities that cannot be used to manufacture standing.
`Failure to State Claim. Even if Plaintiffs could establish a diversion of resources worthy of
`Article III standing, their allegations plainly fail to state claims under California’s Unfair Competition
`Law (“UCL”) or False Advertising Law (“FAL”) for numerous reasons, including:
`First, neither Plaintiff claims to have actually relied on the challenged advertising or labels, as
`required by California law to bring a false advertising claim. Whether under the FAL or any prong of the
`UCL, an organization does not suffer a statutory injury by addressing alleged misrepresentations it already
`believes to be false. Thus, even if they could establish Article III standing, Plaintiffs’ self-inflicted injuries
`are not enough to create statutory standing for their claims under California law.
`Second, FoE cannot assert claims on behalf of one of its members, as California law does not
`recognize FAL or UCL claims based on representational or associational standing.
`Third, Plaintiffs’ attempt to smuggle a challenge to Sanderson’s farming practices through the
`unfair or unlawful prongs of the UCL fails because (i) such practices (including Sanderson’s use of
`antibiotics in raising its chickens) are expressly authorized by federal law, (ii) the challenged practices do
`not constitute “unfair” business practices as a matter of law, and (iii) Plaintiffs cannot use California’s
`UCL to attack farming practices that they concede occur outside the State.
`Fourth, the complex federal regulatory scheme governing both meat labeling and processing
`preempts Plaintiffs’ state-law challenges to either Sanderson’s USDA-approved “100% Natural” labels or
`conduct in Sanderson’s processing facilities. Those federal requirements, authorized by not one but two
`federal statutes, expressly preempt Plaintiffs’ challenges under the UCL and FAL.
`The Court should dismiss this action without leave to amend.
`2
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 50 Filed 06/25/21 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`In June 2017, three advocacy organizations—including FoE, one of the Plaintiffs here—asserted
`false advertising claims against Sanderson based on statements on Sanderson’s website, in television
`commercials, and in other media. See Friends of the Earth v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-03592-
`RS (N.D. Cal. filed June 22, 2017).1 After three amended complaints and more than a year of discovery,
`the Court dismissed the organizations’ claims on July 31, 2019, holding that they “ha[d] not produced
`evidence in discovery to establish their standing under Article III.” See 2019 WL 3457787, at *1. Based
`on a thorough review of the discovery record, the Court explained that the organizations’ activities “were
`not a reaction to Sanderson’s advertising,” but instead “were continuations of non-Sanderson-specific
`initiatives [p]laintiffs were undertaking in furtherance of their missions to address antibiotic use
`generally.” Id. at *2. The Court found that such activities were “not required by Sanderson’s advertising”
`(itself a reason to reject the organizations’ standing allegations), which was confirmed by “damaging”
`deposition testimony from the organizations’ representatives, who “admit[ted] they did not divert
`resources because of Sanderson’s advertising and state[d] they would have undertaken the same advocacy
`activities . . . even if Sanderson had never aired the challenged advertisements.” Id. at *2–3.
`In the wake of the Court’s decision, the plaintiffs from Friends of the Earth and a new organization,
`IDA, began working to moot the Court’s order by engaging in the bare minimum of internet posting over
`the course of a single week in November 2019 in an effort to manufacture standing:
`• Action Alerts: FoE and IDA each allegedly published an “action alert” and linked petition,
`which purported to demand that “Sanderson Farms immediately cease all practices that are
`inconsistent with its ‘100% Natural’ marketing,” including “using antibiotics routinely, selling
`chicken meat with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and confining chickens exclusively indoors in
`crowded conditions.” First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) (ECF No. 48) ¶¶ 37–38, 58–59.
`• Social Media Posts: IDA published two Tweets and three Facebook posts with passing
`references to Sanderson’s use of the phrase “100% Natural.” Id. ¶ 39. (FoE does not allege it
`published any additional Tweets or Facebook posts during this period.)
`
`Apparently thinking this was enough to support Article III standing, Plaintiffs sent Sanderson a
`pre-suit demand on April 10, 2020, signed by FoE, IDA, and the Center for Food Safety (“CFS”), the
`
`
`1 The Friends of the Earth litigation was originally captioned Organic Consumers Ass’n v. Sanderson
`Farms, Inc. After the Organic Consumers Association voluntarily dismissed its claims, the caption was
`modified accordingly. See Stip. of Voluntary Dismissal, FoE (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 80 (July 18, 2018).
`3
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 50 Filed 06/25/21 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`other plaintiff from the FoE litigation. FAC ¶ 40; Ex. 1 (4/10/20 Letter from Pls. to Sanderson).2 This
`letter recycled, often word-for-word, the standing allegations from the Friends of the Earth complaint.
`Compare Ex. 1 at 1-4, with Ex. 2 (Third Am. Compl., FoE (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 114-3 (Oct. 2, 2018)
`(“FoE Compl.”)) ¶¶ 14–27.3 Tellingly, the relief sought in the organizations’ letter also was the same as
`the relief sought in the prior case. Compare Ex. 1 at 4–5, with FoE Compl. at 37.
`Sanderson responded on April 29, 2020, noting that the organizations “offer[ed] no new support
`for or further explanation of the substance of [their] allegations” and making clear Sanderson’s view that
`the organizations’ letter was “another litigation-driven, self-serving document that attempts to
`memorialize a diversion of resources that does not exist.” FAC ¶ 41; Ex. 3 (4/29/20 Letter from Sanderson
`to Pls.). Sanderson further noted that the “proposal” in the organizations’ letter was “materially identical
`to the January 31, 2019 settlement demand that [their] counsel made during the prior case.” Ex. 3 at 2.
`After waiting more than two months, the organizations sent Sanders