Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 53 Filed 08/06/21 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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)
`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
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`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 53 Filed 08/06/21 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................................................................2
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFFS LACK ARTICLE III STANDING TO PURSUE THEIR CLAIMS........................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Setbacks to Plaintiffs’ Advocacy Interests Are Not a Concrete Injury. ..............................2
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Plausibly Allege a Diversion of Resources. ..............................................4
`
`II.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FAL AND UCL ALLEGATIONS FAIL AS A MATTER OF LAW. ...................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Misrepresentation-Based Claims Fail for Lack of Actual Reliance. ..................8
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Based on Sanderson’s Farming Practices Fail. .....................................10
`
`Plaintiffs’ Challenge to Sanderson’s USDA-Approved Label Is Preempted. ...................12
`
`III.
`
`PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT RECEIVE LEAVE TO AMEND. ................................................15
`
`CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`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 53 Filed 08/06/21 Page 3 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`A White & Yellow Cab, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`2017 WL 1208384 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) ...........................................................................9
`
`Allen v. City of Beverly Hills,
`911 F.2d 367 (9th Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................................15
`
`AlterG, Inc. v. Boost Treadmills LLC,
`388 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .....................................................................................9
`
`Am. Diabetes Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army,
`938 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2019) ...............................................................................................5, 6
`
`Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Great Bull Run, LLC,
`2014 WL 2568685 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2014) ...........................................................................10
`
`Animal Legal Def. Fund v. LT Napa Partners LLC,
`184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 759 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) .............................................................................10
`
`Animal Legal Defense Fund v. HVFG LLC,
`2013 WL 3242244 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2013) .........................................................................10
`
`Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co.,
`2013 WL 5530017 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2013) ..........................................................................12
`
`California v. Ross,
`362 F. Supp. 3d 749 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .......................................................................................3
`
`Cappello v. Walmart Inc.,
`2019 WL 11687705 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2019) ...........................................................................9
`
`Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int'l,
`300 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................15
`
`Cohen v. Conagra Brands, Inc.,
`2020 WL 5628937 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2020)
`appeal filed, No. 20-55969 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2020) ........................................................13, 14
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt,
`2020 WL 4188091 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2020) .......................................................................2, 8
`
`Diamond v. Charles,
`476 U.S. 54 (1986) .....................................................................................................................3
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`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 53 Filed 08/06/21 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`Durell v. Sharp Healthcare,
`108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 682 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) ...............................................................................9
`
`E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden,
`993 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2021) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Equinox Hotel Mgmt., Inc. v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.,
`2018 WL 659105 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2018) ...............................................................................9
`
`Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack,
`808 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................4
`
`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
`
`Gentges v. Trend Micro Inc.,
`2012 WL 2792442 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2012) ..............................................................................9
`
`Great Pac. Sec. v. Barclays Cap., Inc.,
`743 F. App’x 780 (9th Cir. 2018) ..............................................................................................9
`
`Hall v. Time Inc.,
`70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) .................................................................................9
`
`Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman,
`455 U.S. 363 (1982) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen,
`366 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .....................................................................................3
`
`Jerome’s Furniture Warehouse v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc.,
`2021 WL 148063 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021) .............................................................................10
`
`Junod v. NWP Servs. Corp.,
`2015 WL 12712310 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2015) ........................................................................12
`
`Kroessler v. CVS Health Corp.,
`977 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................14
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,
`246 P.3d 877 (Cal. 2011) ...........................................................................................................9
`
`L.A. Taxi Coop., Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`114 F. Supp. 3d 852 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .....................................................................................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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`iii
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 53 Filed 08/06/21 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`La Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake Forest,
`624 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................................2, 7, 8
`
`Lee v. Conagra Brands, Inc.,
`958 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................................14
`
`LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. DeMassa,
`2020 WL 4747909 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2020) ....................................................................9, 10
`
`Leining v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.,
`275 Cal. Rptr. 3d 682 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) .............................................................................14
`
`McGill v. Citibank, N.A.,
`393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017) ...........................................................................................................10
`
`Meaunrit v. The Pinnacle Foods Grp., LLC,
`2010 WL 1838715 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2010) ...........................................................................13
`
`Nat’l Council of La Raza v. Cegavske,
`800 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................3
`
`Organic Consumers Ass’n v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.,
`284 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................................13
`
`Ortiz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`2011 WL 4952979 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2011) .........................................................................12
`
`Patricia A. Murray Dental Corp. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc.,
`227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 862 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) .............................................................................10
`
`Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`53 F. Supp. 3d 1190 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................9
`
`Pierce v. Ducey,
`965 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2020) (per curiam)...............................................................................3
`
`Prata v. Superior Court,
`111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 296 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) .............................................................................10
`
`In re Quaker Oats Labeling Litig.,
`2012 WL 1034532 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2012) ...................................................................12, 13
`
`Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc.,
`361 P.3d 868 (Cal. 2015) .........................................................................................................14
`
`Rodriguez v. City of San Jose,
`930 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................3
`
`Sabra v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist.,
`479 F. Supp. 3d 808 (D. Ariz. 2020) .........................................................................................4
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 53 Filed 08/06/21 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`Serv. Women’s Action Network v. Mattis,
`320 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................................................6, 7
`
`Shin v. Campbell Soup Co.,
`2018 WL 6164264 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2018) .........................................................................14
`
`Silvas v. E*Trade Mortg. Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................12
`
`Silverman v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`2018 WL 6046209 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018) ..................................................................11, 12
`
`Sullivan v. Oracle Corp.,
`254 P.3d 237 (Cal. 2011) .........................................................................................................11
`
`Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting,
`732 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................3
`
`Watkins v. MGA Ent., Inc.,
`2021 WL 3141218 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2021) ............................................................................9
`
`Webb v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
`999 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2021) ...........................................................................................12, 13
`
`Williams v. Apple, Inc.,
`449 F. Supp. 3d 892 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .......................................................................................9
`
`Statutes
`
`21 U.S.C. § 467e ................................................................................................................12, 13, 14
`
`21 U.S.C. § 678 ..............................................................................................................................14
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)..................................................................................................................12
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)....................................................................................................................4
`
`Other Authorities
`
`9 C.F.R. § 412.1(a).........................................................................................................................13
`
`21 C.F.R. pt. 558 ............................................................................................................................11
`
`USDA OIG, Controls Over Meat, Poultry, and Egg Product Labels,
`Audit Report 24601-0002-23 (June 2020),
`https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/audit-reports/24601-0002-23.pdf ............................14
`
`
`
`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 53 Filed 08/06/21 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs spare no effort in twisting their own allegations, stretching existing precedent, and
`caricaturing Sanderson’s arguments in a desperate attempt to avoid dismissal and blunt the dispositive
`effect of this Court’s and the Ninth’s Circuits opinions in the original Friends of the Earth litigation. 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.)”). But nothing in their opposition changes
`the fact that Plaintiffs’ disagreement with how Sanderson raises its chickens does not rank as a
`constitutional injury under Article III or a statutory injury under California law. Because Plaintiffs cannot
`establish Article III or statutory standing, and their claims independently fail as a matter of law, the First
`Amended Complaint (“FAC”) should be dismissed in its entirety without leave to amend.
`Lack of Article III Standing. Plaintiffs do not plausibly contend they were forced to divert
`resources in response to a concrete injury threatened by Sanderson’s advertising or farming practices. The
`lesson from the Friends of the Earth case is clear: an advocacy organization’s sporadic engagement of a
`business whose practices they dislike is not a “diversion” of resources under Article III, particularly when
`such posting and blogging is part and parcel of the organization’s regular activities. Although Plaintiffs
`suggest that Friends of the Earth “underscores the strength of Plaintiffs’ allegations here,” see Opp’n
`(ECF No. 52) at 9–10, no amount of spin can hide the fact that the Sanderson-related conduct they attempt
`to rely upon for standing in this case was either purely litigation-driven or mere continuations of Plaintiffs’
`pre-existing initiatives related to animal agriculture. Plaintiffs were not impaired in their day-to-day
`operations by Sanderson’s conduct, nor were they required to forgo other initiatives that they commonly
`undertake. Plaintiffs therefore lack standing and this Court lacks jurisdiction over their claims.
`Failure to State Claims. Plaintiffs also fail to state viable FAL and UCL claims. Plaintiffs do not
`(and cannot) allege that they were misled by Sanderson’s advertising. That fact is fatal to their
`misrepresentation claims under the FAL or UCL, which require that a plaintiff must have detrimentally
`relied on the alleged falsities. Because the entire premise of Plaintiffs’ suit here is that they observed
`Sanderson’s advertising and immediately believed it to be false, they cannot establish their own reliance
`and their claims should be dismissed. Plaintiffs’ remaining theories also fail: Plaintiffs are unable to
`explain how they are injured by Sanderson’s administration of antibiotics to chickens raised outside of
`1
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 53 Filed 08/06/21 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`California. That conduct—which is authorized by federal law and has no connection to the state—is not
`actionable under the UCL or FAL, and any claims premised on Sanderson’s farming practices should be
`dismissed. Finally, Plaintiffs’ challenge to Sanderson’s USDA-approved label is preempted, as Plaintiffs
`improperly seek to prevent Sanderson from using a label bearing a phrase—“100% Natural”—that USDA
`has judged meets the federal definition for “natural” food products. All of Plaintiffs’ UCL and FAL
`theories thus fail to state actionable claims, and those claims should be dismissed without leave to amend.
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFFS LACK ARTICLE III STANDING TO PURSUE THEIR CLAIMS.
`Plaintiffs’ opposition confirms that Sanderson’s advertising and farming practices did not impair
`Plaintiffs’ ability to function, nor were they forced to divert resources to mitigate or ward off some other
`concrete injury threatened by Sanderson’s conduct. Indeed, for all their posturing, Plaintiffs cannot point
`to a single initiative (advocacy or otherwise) that either organization could not carry out because of
`Sanderson. That is entirely unsurprising: over a span of five years, Friends of the Earth (“FoE”) and
`In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) put out only a handful of Sanderson-related social media posts and
`engaged in sporadic litigation and litigation-adjacent activities, none of which prevented Plaintiffs from
`conducting their standard advocacy activities. To the contrary, the very efforts Plaintiffs now claim were
`“diversions” were business-as-usual for these advocacy organizations. There is no doubt that Plaintiffs
`dislike Sanderson’s farming practices. But their voluntary decision to voice their displeasure does not
`earn them entry into the limited jurisdiction of federal courts under Article III.
`
`Setbacks to Plaintiffs’ Advocacy Interests Are Not a Concrete Injury.
`A.
`Plaintiffs fail to explain how Sanderson’s conduct required them to choose between suffering an
`independent injury-in-fact and diverting resources. It did not. To establish Article III standing on a
`diversion-of-resources theory, an organization must be forced to divert resources to mitigate or stave off
`some other threatened injury. See, e.g., La Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake
`Forest, 624 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 2020 WL
`4188091, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2020). The prospect of such injury—which must be real, concrete,
`and actual or imminent—lies at the heart of organizational standing: it is the compulsory nature of a
`diversion of resources that transforms an otherwise non-actionable resource allocation into a bona fide
`2
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 53 Filed 08/06/21 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`Article III injury. Plaintiffs do not dispute that organizational standing turns “on the presence or absence
`of allegations of a concrete and particularized injury”; they instead claim that Sanderson’s advertising and
`farming practices inflicted such injury by impairing “Plaintiffs’ goals of protecting consumers, promoting
`sustainable agriculture and a healthy environment, and protecting animals.” See Opp’n at 3, 11. But a
`setback to Plaintiffs’ abstract values or societal interests is not a concrete or particularized injury under
`Article III, see Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 66–67 (1986); Pierce v. Ducey, 965 F.3d 1085, 1089
`(9th Cir. 2020) (per curiam), and Plaintiffs’ food and animal agriculture advocacy efforts do not
`“automatically” mean that Sanderson’s conduct “frustrates their missions or requires them to divert
`resources,” see Rodriguez v. City of San Jose, 930 F.3d 1123, 1136 (9th Cir. 2019).
`Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, Sanderson’s conduct did not threaten them with anything like
`the injuries visited on organizations typically held to have standing in this circuit. Those organizations—
`service providers, one and all—diverted resources to counteract policies and practices that directly and
`appreciably made it more difficult for them to offer the services they exist to provide. See, e.g., E. Bay
`Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 993 F.3d 640, 663–64 (9th Cir. 2021) (organizations re-tooled services to
`address new asylum ineligibility rule and provided non-legal border services); Nat’l Council of La Raza
`v. Cegavske, 800 F.3d 1032, 1040–41 (9th Cir. 2015) (organizations registered voters “who would likely
`have been registered by the State, had it complied with the NVRA”); Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732
`F.3d 1006, 1018–19 (9th Cir. 2013) (organizations “offer[ed] transportation and shelter to unauthorized
`aliens” and believed “volunteers w[ould] be deterred” from providing services because of the challenged
`law); Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (challenged policy
`“directly impedes [the organizations’] mission, in that it is manifestly more difficult to represent clients
`who are returned to Mexico”); California v. Ross, 362 F. Supp. 3d 749, 755 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (organization
`provided technical and other assistance that would be impaired by census citizenship question); see also
`Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379 (1982) (the challenged “steering practices . . .
`perceptibly impaired” organization’s counseling and referral services). In those cases, therefore, it was
`the concrete impairment of the organizations’ provision of services that gave rise to an Article III injury,
`not some unquantified (and unquantifiable) setback to their social goals or general worldviews.
`Plaintiffs here do not allege that Sanderson’s conduct independently impaired their ability to
`3
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 53 Filed 08/06/21 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`function in any way. At most, they have alleged an undefined injury to their advocacy messages—namely,
`their interest in “transparency in the food system on behalf of the general public.” FAC (ECF No. 48)
`¶ 195. This is a paradigmatic example of the sort of generalized social interest that does not give rise to
`Article III standing, and nothing about Plaintiffs’ status as organizations (as opposed to individuals) allows
`them to evade the Constitution’s injury-in-fact requirement. See, e.g., Sabra v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty.
`Coll. Dist., 479 F. Supp. 3d 808, 816 (D. Ariz. 2020) (“[T]he materials and quiz at issue are akin to a mere
`social setback for [organization]’s abstract social interest of advocacy. . . .”), appeal filed, No 20-16774
`(9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2020); Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905, 921 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
`(organization’s interests not “perceptibly impaired” notwithstanding expenditure of “resources educating
`its members and the public about the NPIS and USDA inspection legend”). Neither Sanderson’s
`advertising nor its farming practices threatened Plaintiffs with any concrete injury that harmed their ability
`to function as organizations: at most, Plaintiffs made a voluntary and independent choice to address
`Sanderson’s conduct—in a manner consistent with their usual activities. That is insufficient under
`Article III, and Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed.
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Plausibly Allege a Diversion of Resources.
`B.
`Separate from their failure to plausibly allege any cognizable injury, Plaintiffs also fail to establish
`that their Sanderson-related conduct was a “diversion” of resources under Article III.
`FoE. FoE’s claims should be dismissed at the outset because it cannot re-litigate the same standing
`theory it unsuccessfully pressed in the Friends of the Earth litigation. FoE tries to sidestep issue preclusion
`by arguing that it “only alleges injuries from after this Court dismissed” its prior case. See Opp’n at 10.
`But that deliberately sells short FoE’s allegations in the previous lawsuit, which included a claim to
`standing based upon allegations of “ongoing injury”—i.e., a continuing diversion of resources. See Pls.’
`Opp’n to Def.’s Rule 12(h)(3) Mot. at 17–19, FoE (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 207 (May 1, 2019). Other than
`the date of the “new” activities identified by FoE, there is no difference—none at all—between the
`diversions alleged in the prior case and the current lawsuit. Compare FoE (N.D. Cal.), 2019 WL 3457787,
`at *1, with FAC ¶¶ 57–67. Incredibly, Plaintiffs admit as much, acknowledging: “Unable to obtain an
`adjudication on the merits and injunction to stop the misrepresentations, Friends of the Earth returned to
`its program work,
`contacting members
`and
`the public
`about Sanderson’s ongoing
`4
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05293 (RS)
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-RS Document 53 Filed 08/06/21 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`misrepresentations . . . .” See Opp’n at 10 (first emphasis added). Having (unsuccessfully) relied upon a
`theory of standing in the last case that was designed to capture future diversions of resources, FoE cannot
`now shrug off the consequences of that suit by pointing to identical activities that happen to post-date the
`filing of the complaint in that case. Put simply, FoE is precluded from reviving its ongoing injury claim
`by engaging in the same activities this Court rejected as a basis for standing in the last case. See FoE (9th
`Cir.), 992 F.3d at 943 (“Nor does the theory of ongoing injury hold water if the Advocacy Groups have
`not established injury in the first place.”).
`Regardless of preclusion, FoE’s allegations again fall far short of establishing a diversion of
`resources as a matter of law, confirming yet again that FoE was going about “business as usual” when it
`published Sanderson-related posts. See id. at 942–45; Am. Diabetes Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 938
`F.3d 1147, 1155 (9th Cir. 2019). As an initial matter, it is difficult to understate just how little Sanderson-
`specific “work” FoE undertook after the dismissal of the prior litigation. FoE alleges it published one
`action alert, conducted one survey (of the exact kind it performed in the last case), and sent two letters to
`Sanderson threatening this suit. See FAC ¶¶ 57–64. That is it. But beyond the meager volume of their
`efforts (which would amount to a mere 6 minutes per day in 2019 and 2020), even taking FoE’s allegations
`as true, these throwaway actions were not “diversions”; they were a transparent effort to do the bare
`minimum in an attempt to skirt this Court’s prior dismissal before returning with this copycat lawsuit.
`Such gamesmanship should not be rewarded, and the Court should refuse—even at the pleading stage—
`to deem FoE’s interregnal conduct cognizable diversion activities.
`In any event, FoE appears to have missed the point of why this Court dismissed the prior lawsuit
`(and why the Ninth Circuit affirmed that dismissal). The reason FoE was found not to have diverted
`resources in the last case was because, in sending action alerts and petitions about food and animal
`agriculture practices, FoE “simply continued doing what [it] w[as] already doing—publishing reports on
`and informing the public of various companies’ antibiotic practices.” See FoE (9th Cir.), 992 F.3d at 943.
`Nothing about Sanderson’s conduct (before or after the dismissal of the Friends of the Earth litigation)
`“prompted a different operational requirement” for FoE, Ex. 51 (5/30/19 Hr’g Tr., FoE (N.D. Cal.), ECF
`
`
`1 Exhibits cited herein were filed with Sanderson’s opening memorandum (ECF No. 50).
`5
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`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 53 Filed 08/06/21 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`No. 218 (June 19, 2019) (“FoE Tr.”)) at 11:10–19, and its business-as-usual advocacy activities in 2019
`and 2020 (just as before) do not amount to a diversion of resources for purposes of Article III. See id. at
`11:20–24; FoE (N.D. Cal.), 2019 WL 3457787, at *2–4; Am. Diabetes Ass’n, 938 F.3d at 1155.
`The vagueness of FoE’s allegations only underscores the point. Although FoE doubles down on
`the claim that it took “resources out of its Oceans program to conduct . . . Sanderson-and-false advertising-
`specific work,” Opp’n at 5, neither the FAC nor Plaintiffs’ opposition provides any supporting detail about
`what specific resources were re-allocated or what activities FoE’s Oceans program could not undertake
`because FoE was addressing Sanderson. See Serv. Women’s Action Network v. Mattis, 320 F. Supp. 3d
`1082, 1100–01 (N.D. Cal. 2018). The reason is simple: FoE’s Oceans campaign was not impaired in any
`perceptible way by FoE’s voluntary decision to issue a handful of Sanderson-related social media posts
`and letters. FoE’s allegations thus do not come close to showing that Sanderson’s conduct called for a
`“different operational requirement” or required FoE to “redeploy or take away from some other activity”
`(i.e., “stop doing blogging because they have to go and address these problems that are presented by the
`Sanderson Farms’ ads”). See FoE Tr. at 11:10–12:3. As the Court recognized in Friends of the Earth,
`FoE was performing “the basic activities that the[] organization[] engaged in day in and day out,” and the
`fact that Sanderson was “part of the parade of people that they think are engaging in objectionable
`practices” did not require FoE to divert resources within the meaning of Article III. See id. at 11:10–24.
`It is no answer to say it was only after this Court’s dismissal of the prior case that FoE “investigated
`[Sanderson’s] advertising and discovered that Sanderson was still misleading members and the public.”
`See Opp’n at 5. FoE knew full well from its years-long participation in the prior case that, apart from the
`Bob & Dale commercials, Sanderson continued using the challenged advertising, including the phrase
`“100% Natural.” See FAC ¶ 56. Nor can FoE seriously c