Judge Rules Connecticut Elephants Don't Have Standing in Action vs. Petting Zoo
A Superior Court judge struck down a nonprofit animal rights advocacy group's lawsuit which argued that elephants have standing to sue for their freedom from a petting zoo.
December 29, 2017 at 01:48 PM
3 minute read
Elephants don't have standing to sue petting zoos, at least not in Connecticut, according to a Litchfield Superior Court ruling this week.
In a ruling that mirrored the results of a copyright fight in California involving a “monkey selfie,” Connecticut Judge James Bentivegna shot down a lawsuit filed on behalf of three elephants at the Commerford Zoo. Florida-based Nonhuman Rights Project filed the lawsuit in an attempt to get the elephants released into a sanctuary.
“Does the petitioner's theory that an elephant is a legal person entitled to those same liberties extended to you and I have a possibility or probability of victory?” Bentivegna wrote in his Tuesday decision. “The petitioner is unable to point to any authority which has held so, but instead relies on relics on basic human rights of freedom and equality, and points to experts' averments to similarities between elephants and human beings as evidence that this court must forge new law.”
The judge—in a stinging rebuke to the complaint—also called the lawsuit “wholly frivolous on its face.”
It's another key loss for groups seeking to establish a precedent showing animals have standing to sue. U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California ruled in 2016 that animals have no standing to assert copyright authorship under Ninth Circuit law. That decision involved a selfie taken by a crested macaque that quickly went viral.
The Ninth Circuit sounded no more receptive during a July 12 oral argument that lead to a settlement. Under the deal, the photographer, whose camera was used to take the selfie, agreed to donate 25 percent of any future revenues from the images to charities dedicated to protecting the crested macaques in Indonesia.
At issue in Connecticut were three female elephants at the petting zoo: Beulah and Minnie, two Asian elephants, and Karen, an African elephant.
Attorney Steven Wise, founder of the nonprofit, argued last month that the elephants are legal persons with the fundamental right to bodily liberty. Wise said the animals were also autonomous.
The Commerford Zoo, which did not have an attorney, did not respond to a request for comment Friday.
The Nonhuman Rights Project is represented by David Zabel, a principal with Cohen & Wolf in Bridgeport. He also did not respond to a request for comment.
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 readFederal Judge Weighs In on School's Discipline for 'Explicitly Copying AI-Generated Text' on Project
When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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