Lolita Will Stay, But Court Leaves a Door Open for Other Whales
Lolita's long legal story ended with one sentence from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Tuesday, but the judges made it clear in another order last month that they want to leave the ending open for future cases involving orcas and other captured animals.
November 02, 2018 at 02:50 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Business Review
Lolita's long legal story ended with one sentence from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Tuesday, but the judges made it clear in another order last month that they want to leave the ending open for future cases involving orcas and other captured animals.
The full court denied a petition for en banc reconsideration of a failed effort by animal rights activists to move the 8,000-pound Orca from the Miami Seaquarium to a West Coast seaside sanctuary. The denial cemented the January ruling from Eleventh Circuit Judges Susan Black and Frank Hull and visiting U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani. The panel affirmed U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro of the Southern District of Florida, who granted the Miami Sequarium summary judgment in June 2016.
But the three judges for the Eleventh Circuit had more to say in a previous order denying a petition for panel rehearing.
“Lolita presents a unique case because she: (1) is of advanced age at 51, having surpassed the median life expectancy for wild, female Southern Resident Killer Whales; (2) has received medical care for approximately 48 years and continues to receive medical care; (3) has already been subject to an unsuccessful federal challenge to the conditions of her captivity; and (4) has no realistic means for returning to the wild without being harmed,” the panel said in a nine-page order Oct. 9 denying the request to reconsider.
“The outcome here avoids tying the hands of future courts in cases involving younger, healthier animals who may be faced with different circumstances,” the panel said. “It also avoids signaling unintentionally that an animal's age and the level of medical care it receives are determinative. Put simply, based on the undisputed evidence and the unique circumstances of this case, the panel determined that no reasonable fact finder could conclude that Lolita's injuries present a 'threat of serious harm' sufficient to trigger liability.”
The judges suggested that Lolita could face more harm if she were returned to the wild after so many years in captivity.
Lolita was between 3 and 6 years old when she was captured, the judges said.
Elliot Scherker of Greenberg Traurig in Miami argued the case for Miami Seaquarium. Scherker said Friday he needed to check with his client before commenting. The Seaquarium did not have a response immediately.
Delcianna Winders argued for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Howard Garrett, the Orca Network and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Winders referred a request for comment to a PETA spokesman: David Perle, assistant media manager.
“This lawsuit was a lifeline for Lolita,” Perle said. “PETA argued that the Seaquarium's confinement of her to the world's smallest orca tank—in which she's displayed with incompatible species, without adequate protection from the sun, and without any companions of her own kind—subjects her to illegal harm and harassment in violation of the Endangered Species Act. While the appeals court reversed the district court's prior ruling that such 'harm' or 'harassment' must be potentially deadly to constitute a violation of the ESA, it summarily concluded before a trial could be held that the injuries from which Lolita suffers do not constitute 'serious' harm.”
Perle also shared a statement from PETA Foundation Deputy General Counsel for Animal Law Jared Goodman.
“This ruling sentences a highly intelligent, deeply lonely, and distressed orca to a lifetime of physical and psychological harm, confined to a tiny concrete cell without family, friends, or freedom,” Goodman said. “It ignores today's understanding of the way orcas suffer deeply in captivity, and PETA will continue pushing for Lolita's release into a protected seaside sanctuary in her home waters.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute readNew Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250