Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—N.D. Cal.: Unfair Competition Law claims proceed against “Bull Run” organizers, (Jun 10, 2014)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Two organizers of Bull Run events in the U.S. were denied their motion to dismiss a complaint seeking to enjoin the organizers from hosting any “Great Bull Run” events in California. A magistrate judge of the federal district court in San Francisco determined that the complaint alleged sufficient injury in fact to establish standing and that a valid California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim may be predicated on a violation of a statute that does not offer a private right of action (Animal Legal Defense Fund v The Great Bull Run, LLC, June 6, 2014, James, M).

Background. The Great Bull Run, LLC and Lone Star Rodeo, LLC organize the “Great Bull Run” events wherein allegedly “panicked and agitated bulls chase down fleeing runners.” Public interest groups Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed suit against The Great Bull Run and Lone Star, seeking to enjoin the “Great Bull Run” events in California. ALDF and PETA brought suit under the UCL to enjoin the “Great Bull Run.” In response, The Great Bull Run and Lone Star filed a motion to dismiss.

Standing. In support of their motion to dismiss, The Great Bull Run and Lone Star argued that ALDF and PETA lacked Article III standing to bring their case because they could not demonstrate they suffered “injury in fact.” Conversely, ALDF and PETA argued that they adequately demonstrated they have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries to establish Article III standing, as the Great Bull Run activities frustrate their charitable missions and force them to divert organizational resources. The court agreed with ALDF and PETA, finding that because they alleged a diversion of their organizational resources to identify and counteract The Great Bull Runs’ and Lone Stars’ events, they established Article III injury in fact and standing. In addition, the court found that ALDF and PETA had standing under the UCL, as they diverted resources as a result of The Great Bull Runs’ and Lone Stars’ alleged unlawful business practices.

Valid claim. ALDF and PETA alleged a UCL cause of action that was predicated on The Great Bull Runs’ and Lone Stars’ violations of California’s Penal Code, banning the subjection of “animals to needless suffering, fighting or worrying bulls, and promoting bloodless bullfights and similar events.” In support of their motion to dismiss, The Great Bull Run and Lone Star argued that ALDF and PETA failed to state a claim because the penal code cannot be enforced through a private right of action in civil court. However, the court disagreed with their analysis, noting that the UCL allows a private right of action against any unlawful business practice, including violations of laws that offer no direct private action. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied.

The case number is 14-cv-01171-MEJ.

Attorneys: Geneva Page (Evans & Page) for Animal Legal Defense Fund, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. Alison Paige Buchanan (Attorney at Law), and Crystal Riggins (Hoge Fenton Jones and Appel) for The Great Bull Run, LLC, and Lone Star Rodeo, LLC.

Companies: Animal Legal Defense Fund; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.; The Great Bull Run, LLC; Lone Star Rodeo, LLC

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews