People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Perdue

• Decision Date: 29 May 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 18-1137 (TFH)
• Citation: 464 F.Supp.3d 300
• Parties: PEOPLE FOR the ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Sonny PERDUE, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

464 F.Supp.3d 300

PEOPLE FOR the ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Plaintiff,

v.Sonny PERDUE, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-1137 (TFH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed May 29, 2020

Jeffrey S. Kerr, Michelle Danielle Sinnott, Pro Hac Vice, Peta Foundation, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Christopher Charles Hair, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS F. HOGAN, United States District Judge

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (PETA) is a non-profit organization that is dedicated to protecting animals from abuse, neglect, and cruelty. PETA brings this suit against Sonny Perdue in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (the USDA) and the Department of Agriculture itself to challenge the USDA's implementation of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq. , as it pertains to the agency's decisions to renew licenses for five animal exhibitors located in six states: (1) The Camel Farm in Yuma, Arizona; (2) Deer Haven Mini Zoo in Keymar, Maryland; (3) Laughing Valley Ranch in Idaho Springs, Colorado; (4) Bayou Wildlife Park in Alvin, Texas; and (5) Henry Hampton, who owns the Lazy 5 Ranch in Mooresville, North Carolina and The Farm at Walnut Creek in Sugarcreek, Ohio. PETA argues that the USDA renewed the five exhibitors’ licenses despite knowing that their renewal applications contained false statements certifying that they were in compliance with the AWA's requirements. PETA contends that the USDA's decisions to renew the exhibitors’ licenses despite knowing that they contained false statements was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, without observance of procedure required by law, and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C), (D)." Am. Compl. [Dkt. 11] ¶ 6.

The USDA's license renewal scheme and authority to renew licenses through a purely administrative process have been challenged without success three times before in Animal Legal Defense Fund v. USDA , No. 13-20076, 2014 WL 11444100 (S.D. Fl. March 25, 2014), aff'd 789 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2015) ; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. USDA , 194 F. Supp. 3d 404 (E.D.N.C. 2016), aff'd 861 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 2017) ; and Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Vilsack, 169 F. Supp. 3d 6 (D.D.C. 2016), aff'd in part and remanded in part sub. nom. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Perdue , 872 F.3d 602 (D.C. Cir. 2017). These decisions make clear that, while PETA may not challenge the USDA's overall process for approving license renewals, individual renewal decisions are reviewable. Upon such review, this Court will grant in part and deny in part the USDA's motion to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

The AWA was enacted "to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and treatment." 7 U.S.C. § 2131(1). The AWA requires the USDA to set standards for "humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors." Id. § 2143(a)(1). The USDA is also required to issue licenses to exhibitors once that exhibitor has "demonstrated that his facilities comply with the standards." Id. § 2133. Exhibitor licenses expire annually and must be renewed to permit the exhibit to remain open. 9 C.F.R. § 2.5(b). To renew a license, an exhibitor must (1) pay the annual license fee, (2) submit an annual report, (3) be available for inspection, and (4) certify compliance with the requirements of the AWA. Id. §§ 2.1(d)(1), 2.3(a), 2.7. The statute and regulations also authorize the USDA to conduct unannounced inspections and issue citations, revoke, or suspend licenses for noncompliance with the human standards. Id. § 2.3(a), 2.12.

PETA "solicits and investigates complaints about animal cruelty submitted by the public" and "routinely sends submissions to the government concerning the treatment of captive animals." Am. Compl. ¶ 16. In furtherance of this mission, PETA monitored the wildlife exhibited by the five exhibitors at issue in this litigation. Id. ¶ 18. PETA alleges that before and immediately after these exhibitors applied to renew their licenses the USDA issued citations to them for violating the applicable standards:

• The USDA cited The Camel Farm for thirty-three violations from March 7, 2017 to November 8, 2017. Id. ¶ 68. The Camel Farm nevertheless certified compliance with the AWA when it applied to renew its license on or before December 6, 2017. Id. ¶ 66. Although the USDA renewed the license, id. ¶ 73, it cited The Camel Farm for two new violations and eight repeat violations less than a month later on February 6, 2018, id. ¶ 75.

• The USDA cited Deer Haven for seventy-seven violations from January 18, 2017 to October 26, 2017. Id. ¶ 83. Deer Haven nevertheless certified compliance with the AWA when it applied to renew its license on or before January 14, 2018. Id. ¶ 81. The USDA renewed the license, id. ¶ 88, but issued seven additional citations on January 30, 2018, id. ¶¶ 89-90.

• The USDA cited Laughing Valley for twelve violations from February 22, 2017 to December 11. 2017. Id. ¶ 98. Laughing Valley nevertheless certified compliance with the AWA when it applied to renew its license on or before December 20, 2017. Id. ¶ 96. The USDA renewed the license, id. ¶ 103, but cited Laughing Valley for five violations, including three repeat violations, on March 1, 2018, id. ¶ 104.

• The USDA cited Bayou Wildlife Park for forty-two violations from April 7, 2017 to October 24, 2017. Id. ¶ 112. Bayou Wildlife Park nevertheless certified compliance with the AWA when it applied to renew its license on or before December 29, 2017. Id. ¶ 110. The USDA renewed the license, id. ¶ 118, but cited Bayou Wildlife Park for eleven violations, including one repeat violation, two months later on February 28, 2018, id. ¶ 119.

• The USDA cited Lazy 5 Ranch for three repeat violations on both March 21, 2017 and March 23, 2017. Id. ¶ 136. Lazy 5 Ranch nevertheless certified compliance with the AWA when it applied to renew its license on or before August 13, 2017. Id. ¶ 126. The USDA renewed the license, id. ¶ 140, but cited Lazy 5 Ranch for five repeat violations ten days later on August 23, 2017, id. ¶ 141.

• The USDA cited The Farm at Walnut Creek for fourteen violations between November 14, 2016 and March 22, 2017. Id. ¶ 128. The Farm at Walnut Creek nevertheless certified compliance with the AWA when it applied to renew its license on or before August 13, 2017. Id. ¶ 126. The USDA renewed the license, id. ¶ 132, but cited The Farm at Walnut Creek for four repeat violations a month later on September 6, 2017, id. ¶ 133.

PETA alleges that when the USDA approved the exhibitors’ renewal applications it was aware that it had recently cited them for violations, including repeat violations. PETA therefore filed this action challenging the USDA's decisions to renew the licenses for all five exhibitors at the above six locations. See Compl. [Dkt. 1]; Am. Compl. [Dkt. 11]. The USDA moves to dismiss on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because PETA cannot establish constitutional standing, PETA's lawsuit is barred by collateral estoppel, and PETA must join the exhibitors as parties if the Court allows the lawsuit to proceed. See Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s First Am. Compl., or, in the Alternative, to Join Required Parties [Dkt. 12] at 2-3. The USDA's motion is now ripe for review.¹

The Court requested supplemental briefing on April 6, 2020.² In response, the parties informed the Court that: (1) Deer Haven is no longer operating; (2) the USDA is engaged in active enforcement proceedings against Laughing Valley Ranch, Lazy 5 Ranch, and The Farm at Walnut Creek; and (3) the USDA is engaged in active enforcement review of Camel Farm. USDA Suppl. at 3, 5; PETA Suppl. at 5 n.4. The Court heard oral argument via teleconference on April 16, 2020.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Standard of Review for Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)

A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "challenges the court's power to hear a case." Badgett v. District of Columbia , 925 F. Supp. 2d 23, 28 (D.D.C. 2013). And it is well established that a lack of standing pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction. Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist. , 475 U.S. 534, 541-42, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986) ; O'Shea v. Littleton , 414 U.S. 488, 493-95, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974).

A 12(b)(1) motion asserting that constitutional standing is insufficient "may raise either a ‘facial’ or a ‘factual’ challenge to the [plaintiff's] claim of subject matter jurisdiction." Erby v. United States , 424 F. Supp. 2d 180, 182 (D.D.C. 2006). When a defendant raises a facial challenge, as is the case here, "the court may consider the complaint standing alone" or "the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record. Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Scis. , 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1992). In either case, the Court must treat "the undisputed facts within or outside the pleadings as true," id. , and draw "all reasonable inferences" in the plaintiff's favor, Knapp Med. Ctr. v. Hargan , 875 F.3d 1125, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

B. Standard of Review for Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)

When a party invokes Rule 12(b)(6) to challenge a complaint for failing to state a claim for relief pursuant to Rule 8, the Court must assess the complaint to determine whether it contains sufficient facts that, when accepted as true,...