The ongoing litigation against poultry giant Sanderson Farms continued on Friday when the company issued a reply to support its the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The reply was filed in the Northern District of California and called for the claim initially filed by In Defense of Animals and Friends of the Earth to be dismissed in its entirety.
The complaint accused Sanderson of false and misleading advertising by claiming that their chicken was “100% natural.” Since Sanderson is known to feed antibiotics to their chickens, the plaintiffs reportedly believe that they are falsely marketing their products for commercial gain, which places consumers at risk.
In order to demonstrate legitimate standing of the claim, the plaintiffs would have had to show that they were forced to divert tangible resources as a result of an injury sustained by Sanderson’s alleged false advertising, the reply explained. The complaint claimed that while Sanderson’s practices might be a perceived setback to the plaintiff’s advocacy efforts, there is no genuine injury sustained by the plaintiff at the hands of Sanderson. Therefore, the standing for their argument is lacking at best.
Sanderson maintained that the plaintiff’s “disagreement with how Sanderson raises its chickens does not rank as a constitutional injury under Article III or a statutory injury under California law.” Due to their inability to demonstrate the needed Article III standing, Sanderson posited that the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. In addition to this failure, the defendant also explained that the plaintiffs’ failed to state viable claims in their first amended complaint.
Because of the holes in the plaintiff’s argument, the defendants are seeking for the lawsuit to be dismissed “in its entirety, with prejudice, and without leave to further amend.”