United Poultry Concerns v. Chabad of Irvine et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-18636594 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff United Poultry Concerns. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Summons, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Attorney Bryan W Pease added to party United Poultry Concerns(pty:pla))(Pease, Bryan)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

David R. Simon (SBN 145197)
SIMON LAW GROUP
17595 Harvard Avenue, Suite C515
Irvine, CA 92614
Ph. [phone]
Bryan W. Pease (SBN 239139)
LAW OFFICE OF BRYAN W. PEASE
3170 Fourth Ave., Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92103
Ph. [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15

UNITED POULTRY CONCERNS, a
Maryland nonprofit corporation,
Plaintiff,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

vs.
CHABAD OF IRVINE, a California
corporation; ALTER TENENBAUM, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants.
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR:
ILLEGAL BUSINESS
PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF
THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR
COMPETITION LAW
[Bus. & Prof. §§ 17200 et seq.]
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER REQUESTED PRIOR
TO OCTOBER 10, 2016

23
24
25

Plaintiff UNITED POULTRY CONCERNS, on behalf of itself and the general

26

public, alleges as follows against Defendants CHABAD OF IRVINE, ALTER

27

TENENBAUM, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (collectively “Defendants”):

28

1
VERIFIED COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1
2

1.

Plaintiff brings this private attorney general action under California Business

3

and Professions Code § 17200 (the “Unfair Competition Law” or “UCL”). Plaintiff seeks

4

an injunction to require compliance with California Penal Code (“PC”) section 597(a),

5

which prohibits intentional killing of an animal and does not contain an exception for

6

religious sacrifice. Defendants engage in business practices for profit in which they

7

charge a fee to kill and discard animals in direct violation of PC 597(a).
PARTIES

8
9

2.

Plaintiff UNITED POULTRY CONCERNS (“UPC”) is a non-profit

10

corporation duly formed and validly existing under the laws of Maryland. UPC’s mission

11

is to encourage respect for chickens and other domestic fowl.

12
13
14

3.

Defendant CHABAD OF IRVINE (“CHABAD”) is a California corporation

with its main place of business in Orange County, California.
4.

Defendant ALTER TENENBAUM (“TENENBAUM”) describes himself as

15

the “spiritual leader” of Defendant CHABAD and directs the ritual killing of chickens.

16

On information or belief, TENENBAUM profits personally from charging a fee for

17

killing and disposing of the chickens.

18

5.

Plaintiffs do not know the true names and capacities of the defendants

19

named in this action as DOES 1-50, and therefore, sue them under fictitious names.

20

Plaintiffs will request permission to amend this complaint, or substitute the Doe

21

Defendants via a court-approved form, to state the true names and capacities of these

22

fictitiously named Defendants when they ascertain them. Plaintiffs allege that these

23

fictitiously named Defendants are legally responsible in some manner for the acts set

24

forth below, and accordingly, are liable for the relief requested.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

25
26

6.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants because

27

each either is domiciled in, or is authorized or registered to conduct, or in fact does

28

conduct, substantial business in the Central District.

2
VERIFIED COMPLAINT

1

7.

This Court has federal diversity jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein

2

because the cost to Defendants of the injunction sought would exceed $75,000 over the

3

course of about ten years. This figure is calculated based on approximately 300 chickens

4

killed per year, at a profit of about $25 per chicken, or $7,500 per year.

5

8.

As a separate and independent basis for diversity jurisdiction, the attorneys’

6

fees incurred by Plaintiff, which Defendant will ultimately be liable for under Code of

7

Civil Procedure section 1021.5 if Plaintiff prevails, have exceeded $75,000 as of the time

8

of the filing of this complaint.

9

9.

A California court would have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims

10

asserted because relief is sought under California Business and Professions Code sections

11

17200, et seq.

12

10.

A separate and independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction is

13

that this case requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law under Grable &

14

Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg. (2005) 545 U.S. 308. Defendants

15

contend their actions are protected by the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment

16

under Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah (1993) 508 U.S. 520

17

(“Lukumi.”) However, Plaintiff contends Lukumi allows neutral laws of general

18

applicability to apply to all conduct, including conduct motivated by religious beliefs.

19

Plaintiff further contends that Defendants’ undisputed conduct violates California Penal

20

Code section 597(a) on its face. A federal court is best equipped to deal with the

21

substantial question of federal law of whether the Court should create an exception to the

22

PC 597(a) based on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

23
24

11.

this action is based occurred in this county.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

25
26

Venue is proper in this county because the acts and omissions upon which

12.

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Business & Professions

27

Code (“BPC”) section 17200, et seq., prohibits businesses from engaging in unlawful,

28

fraudulent, or unfair business practices. For purposes of the UCL, a non-profit

3
VERIFIED COMPLAINT

1

organization, including a religious one, can engage in “business practices” if money is

2

exchanged for goods and/or services.

3

13.

An action based on Section 17200 to redress an unlawful business practice

4

borrows violations of other laws and treats them as a violation of Section 17200. In other

5

words, a business practice is “unlawful” under Section 17200 when it violates another

6

federal, state or local law, whether or not the other law contains a private right of action.

7

14.

California Business and Professions Code §§ 17203 and 17204 allow private

8

parties who have lost money or property as a result of Defendants’ unlawful business

9

practices to ask a court to enjoin such practices.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

10
11

15.

Routinely in the fall of each year, Defendants order and receive at their

12

property truckloads of chickens crammed in tiny crates and charge people a fee of

13

approximately $27 to kill and dispose of each chicken.

14
15
16

16.

On information or belief, the cost of each chicken is under $2, and thus the

profit to Defendants is approximately $25 per chicken killed and disposed of.
17.

Defendants have admitted the chickens are not used for food, and

17

Defendants are not conducting their activities at a USDA licensed slaughterhouse, which

18

would be required to use the chickens for food.

19

18.

California Penal Code Section 597(a) prohibits any “intentional and

20

malicious” killing of an animal. PC 599c provides exceptions for killing dangerous

21

animals and using animals for food, hunting, or medical research at a licensed facility.

22

19.

Defendants’ conduct described herein is malicious as that term is defined in

23

California Penal Code section 7, in that Defendants have “an intent to do a wrongful act,

24

established either by proof or presumption of law.”

25

20.

The Legislature did not see fit to include an exception to PC 597(a) for

26

conduct motivated by religion, and there is no such exception. However, Defendants

27

believe they are above the law and can conduct themselves as they wish because of their

28

religious beliefs.

4
VERIFIED COMPLAINT

1

21.

PC 597(a) was enacted to prohibit exactly the type of conduct that

2

Defendants here are engaged in, that is, the deliberate killing of an animal not known to

3

be dangerous, for a purpose other than food, hunting or medical research.

4

22.

Defendants’ stated purpose in carrying out the killing described herein is to

5

allow people to transfer their sins to the animal, and then kill the animal for their sins.

6

Such conduct is clearly illegal under PC 597(a). Engaging in such conduct under the

7

guise of religion does not alter the illegality of the conduct. In fact, taking out vengeance

8

on an innocent animal for one’s own shortcomings is exactly the type of societal evil the

9

legislature sought to prohibit in enacting this provision. Defendants are not entitled to

10

rewrite the laws of California, and determine for themselves what is legal and moral

11

conduct, when the Legislature has found that this exact conduct is illegal and punishable

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

as a misdemeanor or a felony.
23.

Defendants engage in the above practices for profit, meaning they generate

positive cash flow and retain the proceeds.
24.

Ronnie Kudlow Steinau (“STEINAU”) has been an employee of Plaintiff for

over 10 years, since September 1, 2006.
25.

When Plaintiff learned of Defendants’ illegal activities described herein,

19

STEINAU’s time working for Plaintiff was diverted to investigating and exposing these

20

acts, and attempting to convince authorities to take action.

21

26.

STEINAU called Defendant CHABAD OF IRVINE before the October

22

2014 Kapparot events and asked how she could participate in one of the events. An agent

23

of CHABAD OF IRVINE told STEINAU that she could pay at the door and that the price

24

was approximately $27 per chicken. The agent specifically told STEINAU she could not

25

have a chicken killed for her without paying the fee.

26

27.

On October 1, 2014, Defendants held a Kapparot event at 5010 Barranca

27

Parkway, Irvine, CA 92604 at which Defendants charged participants a fee for killing a

28

chicken that participants first swung in the air.
5
VERIFIED COMPLAINT

1

28.

At this event held by Defendants, there were birds crammed in cages so

2

tightly they did not have room to spread their wings or move around, six to seven birds

3

each crammed into small cages barely large enough to hold them, several cages stacked

4

on top of each other and left in the hot sun for hours with no water, and a foul and

5

offensive odor was emanating from the cages.

6

29.

Agents of Defendant roughly removed and handled these birds, holding

7

them by the necks and wings, walking around while holding chickens upside down by

8

their feet, holding chickens with their wings held behind them, birds stacked in cages on

9

top of one another, defecating on the cages and birds beneath them, and birds with fecal

10

matter on their bodies and feathers. Agents of Defendant who were handling the birds

11

would often walk around talking while holding the birds by their wings, treating the birds

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

as if they were inanimate objects and handling them very roughly.
30.

Defendants and/or their agents conducted the killing in a small patio area

and tossed dead birds into trash cans. Participants swung the birds around over their
heads and then an agent of Defendants would take the birds and slit their throats. The
screams of the birds being slaughtered lasted for hours.
31.

STEINAU was present at the October 1, 2014 event and called Orange

19

County Animal Care from the event to seek enforcement action. However, on

20

information or belief, no such enforcement action was taken.

21

32.

On or about September 10, 2015, STEINAU called Defendant CHABAD

22

OF IRVINE at 949-786-5000 and spoke with an individual who would neither confirm

23

nor deny whether the Kapparot event was taking place that year. The agent said she

24

would not give out information because STEINAU was not on the “member” list, and

25

that the police said she does not have to answer questions from anyone. STEINAU also

26

called on or about September 17, 2015 and received the same response.

27
28

33.

On information or belief, Defendants will again be illegally killing and

disposing of chickens for a fee beginning on the weekend of October 8, 2016.
6
VERIFIED COMPLAINT

1

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2

(Illegal Business Practices in Violation of the

3

Unfair Competition Law, BPC §§ 17200 et seq.)

4
5
6

34.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in each of

the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
35.

Defendants have engaged in acts or practices that constitute unfair

7

competition, as that term is defined in section 17200 et seq. of the California Business &

8

Professions Code.

9

36.

Defendants have violated, are violating, and plan to violate Business &

10

Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. through their unlawful business acts and

11

practices, which violate California Penal Code section 597(a).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
1.

For preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants and their

principals, members, agents, officers, employees, representatives, co-conspirators, and all

19

person acting in concert, collaboration or participation with them during the pendency of

20

this action and permanently thereafter, from killing any chicken or other animal for, or on

21

behalf of, another person, for compensation or donation, for any reason not enumerated in

22

California Penal Code section 599c;

23

2.

For declaratory relief declaring that Defendants’ killing of chickens for

24

religious purposes when not using the chickens for food is not permitted under any

25

provision the California Penal Code and is specifically banned by PC 597(a);

26
27
28

3.

For attorneys’ fees as provided by, inter alia, Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, and

for costs of suit incurred herein.
4.

For pre- and post-judgment interest.
7
VERIFIED COMPLAINT

5.

1

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

2
3

SIMON LAW GROUP
LAW OFFICE OF BRYAN W. PEASE

4
5

Dated: September 28, 2016

By:
______________________________
Bryan W. Pease
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED POULTRY CONCERNS

6
7
8
9
10

VERIFICATION

11
12
13
14
15

I, Ronnie Kudlow Steinau, am an employee of Plaintiff United Poultry Concerns. I
have read the foregoing complaint and am familiar with its contents, which I declare
under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California are all true and correct.

16
17

Dated: September 28, 2016

18
19
20
21

By:

______________________________
Ronnie Kudlow Steinau

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8
VERIFIED COMPLAINT