People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v.
California Milk Producers Advisory Bd. case brief
22 Cal.Rptr.3d 900
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
22 Cal.Rptr.3d 900
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellant
animal rights group sued respondent California Milk Producers
Advisory Board (CMAB), alleging that CMAB's advertising campaign
violated California's Unfair Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., know as the unfair competition law
(UCL), because the advertisements were false and deceptive. The
Superior Court of San Francisco County, California, dismissed the
action, and the group appealed.
FACTS: The trial court sustained the demurrers after concluding that CMAB was not a "person" as defined by the UCL and, thus, that the state board was not subject to suit under that remedial statutory scheme. The court of appeal agreed that public entities, including CMAB, were not "persons" who were subject to suit under the UCL. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17201, which defined a "person" subject to suit, did not include any references to governmental agencies or political entities. Thus, only through an unreasonable, strained construction could CMAB, an administrative adjunct to a governmental body, be deemed encompassed by that statutory definition. The court rejected the group's argument that "infringement of sovereign power" was a proper test, but nevertheless noted that its decision was supported under that rationale. The work of CMAB in promoting California's agricultural economy through promotional campaigns was linked by the legislature to important public interests that would have given rise to an infringement of sovereign power.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, with costs on appeal awarded to CMAB.
FACTS: The trial court sustained the demurrers after concluding that CMAB was not a "person" as defined by the UCL and, thus, that the state board was not subject to suit under that remedial statutory scheme. The court of appeal agreed that public entities, including CMAB, were not "persons" who were subject to suit under the UCL. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17201, which defined a "person" subject to suit, did not include any references to governmental agencies or political entities. Thus, only through an unreasonable, strained construction could CMAB, an administrative adjunct to a governmental body, be deemed encompassed by that statutory definition. The court rejected the group's argument that "infringement of sovereign power" was a proper test, but nevertheless noted that its decision was supported under that rationale. The work of CMAB in promoting California's agricultural economy through promotional campaigns was linked by the legislature to important public interests that would have given rise to an infringement of sovereign power.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, with costs on appeal awarded to CMAB.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment