PETA sues California restaurant for violating foie gras ban
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is taking the California ban on foie gras very seriously.
November 29, 2012 at 06:29 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is taking the California ban on foie gras very seriously. And the animal rights organization proved that it is willing to go to court to keep restaurants compliant.
Yesterday, PETA filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against Hot's Kitchen, claiming the restaurant is violating the state ban on foie gras by offering the “fat liver” delicacy as a complimentary side to its popular “THE Burger” menu item. Foie gras was banned in California in July.
“It's a transparent attempt to evade the law, plain and simple,” Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, told Thomson Reuters.
California lawmakers actually passed the ban on foie gras back in 2004, but the law gave restaurants and farmers eight years to implement the new law. Foie gras is controversial because of the way it's made, which involves force-feeding geese or ducks until their livers become enlarged. Opponents of foie gras believe this method constitutes inhumane treatment of animals.
Hot's Kitchen was among the many California restaurants opposing the ban, saying in a legal complaint it filed against its passage: “The statute defines 'force feeding' as using a process that causes a bird to 'consume more food than a typical bird of the same species would consume voluntarily. In practice, the vagueness of this purported standard makes it impossible for anyone to know at what point a particular bird has been fed 'more food' than the bird feeding law allows.”
At press time, Hot's said it had not yet been served with the suit, and a spokeswoman for the restaurant cracked it up to a publicity stunt on PETA's part. “Publicity stunts such as the filing of an outrageous, baseless lawsuit, followed by the issuance of press releases are nothing more than an attempt to exploit the media by stoking controversial flames and are designed to line the pockets of profiteers,” Kelley Coughlan told Thomson Reuters.
Read more InsideCounsel stories about foie gras and other controversial food products:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is taking the California ban on foie gras very seriously. And the animal rights organization proved that it is willing to go to court to keep restaurants compliant.
Yesterday, PETA filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against Hot's Kitchen, claiming the restaurant is violating the state ban on foie gras by offering the “fat liver” delicacy as a complimentary side to its popular “THE Burger” menu item. Foie gras was banned in California in July.
“It's a transparent attempt to evade the law, plain and simple,” Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, told Thomson Reuters.
California lawmakers actually passed the ban on foie gras back in 2004, but the law gave restaurants and farmers eight years to implement the new law. Foie gras is controversial because of the way it's made, which involves force-feeding geese or ducks until their livers become enlarged. Opponents of foie gras believe this method constitutes inhumane treatment of animals.
Hot's Kitchen was among the many California restaurants opposing the ban, saying in a legal complaint it filed against its passage: “The statute defines 'force feeding' as using a process that causes a bird to 'consume more food than a typical bird of the same species would consume voluntarily. In practice, the vagueness of this purported standard makes it impossible for anyone to know at what point a particular bird has been fed 'more food' than the bird feeding law allows.”
At press time, Hot's said it had not yet been served with the suit, and a spokeswoman for the restaurant cracked it up to a publicity stunt on PETA's part. “Publicity stunts such as the filing of an outrageous, baseless lawsuit, followed by the issuance of press releases are nothing more than an attempt to exploit the media by stoking controversial flames and are designed to line the pockets of profiteers,” Kelley Coughlan told Thomson Reuters.
Read more InsideCounsel stories about foie gras and other controversial food products:
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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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