992 F.3d 939
9th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiffs: Friends of the Earth and Center for Food Safety (the Advocacy Groups), public-interest organizations that campaign to reduce routine antibiotic use in animal agriculture.
- Defendant: Sanderson Farms, a poultry producer that advertised its chicken as “100% Natural” and ran ads saying there were “[n]o antibiotics to worry about here.”
- After learning of the ads on August 1, 2016, the Advocacy Groups sued in June 2017 under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law alleging misleading advertising.
- The organizations produced reports, press releases, social media posts, petitions, and related discovery about antibiotic practices and restaurant sourcing (including Chain Reaction reports).
- Sanderson mounted a factual Rule 12(b)(1) challenge at the close of discovery, arguing the groups had not actually diverted resources to combat the advertising but instead continued ongoing advocacy.
- The district court found the groups failed to show diversion (their post-hoc declarations conflicted with deposition testimony and were uncorroborated) and dismissed for lack of organizational standing; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs established organizational standing by diverting resources to combat Sanderson’s advertising | Advocacy Groups: they spent additional staff time and used social media and publications to rebut Sanderson’s ads (e.g., declarations claiming increased time spent) | Sanderson: the activities were part of plaintiffs’ ongoing antibiotic-reduction campaigns and not caused by the advertising; declarations conflict with deposition evidence | Held: No diversion shown; activities were continuations of ongoing work, so no organizational standing |
| Whether the district court erred in resolving factual conflicts without applying the sham-affidavit rule or holding an evidentiary hearing | Advocacy Groups: district court should have applied stringent sham-affidavit standards or held a hearing before discrediting declarations | Sanderson: district court properly resolved factual jurisdictional dispute under Rule 12(b)(1) and weigh credibility; sham-affidavit strictures not required in that posture | Held: No error; in a factual 12(b)(1) challenge the court may independently evaluate evidence and resolve credibility disputes; summary declarations were inconsistent and uncorroborated |
| Whether the UCL claim could proceed based on Sanderson’s husbandry practices apart from the advertising | Advocacy Groups: UCL challenges husbandry practices as well as advertising, so claim should survive even if ad-based standing fails | Sanderson: plaintiffs tied their UCL claim to the alleged misrepresentations; husbandry practices were relevant only insofar as they supported the advertising claim | Held: UCL claim was entirely tethered to the advertising representations and fails with the standing ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Diabetes Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 938 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2019) (organizational standing requires diversion of resources that would not otherwise have been expended)
- Nat’l Council of La Raza v. Cegavske, 800 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing ordinary activities from altered resource allocation for standing)
- Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (standing found where organization created targeted literature to redress challenged practices)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC, 666 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2012) (standing found where new campaigns were initiated to address defendant conduct)
- NAACP v. City of Kyle, 626 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2010) (ongoing lobbying/regular activities do not support organizational standing)
- Fair Hous. Council of Suburban Phila. v. Montgomery Newspapers, 141 F.3d 71 (3d Cir. 1998) (day-to-day operations do not establish diversion for standing)
- Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff must support jurisdictional allegations with competent proof when defendant contests them)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (procedural standards for evaluating contested jurisdictional facts)
- Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) (opponent of 12(b)(1) must supply affidavits or evidence to establish jurisdiction)
- La Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake Forest, 624 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) (litigation costs cannot manufacture standing)
- Kingman Reef Atoll Invs., LLC v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court has latitude to resolve jurisdictional facts)
- Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2012) (sham-affidavit rule discussed and applied with caution)
- Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (sham-affidavit rule tensions with credibility determinations)
- Adler v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 107 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 1997) (district court discretion in procedures to establish jurisdictional facts)